Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. Speaker in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

Derby Corporation Bill

Reigate Congregational Church Bill

Solihull Corporation Bill

SUNDERLAND CORPORATION BILL

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Council Houses (Modernisation)

Sir J. Gilmour: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many of the council houses in Scotland built before 1939 have been modernised; and how many still require to be modernised at the present date.

The Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office (Mr. George Younger): About 80,000 houses built by local authorities have been included in improvement proposals approved for Government grant. I regret that I cannot say how many of these were built before 1939 or how many pre-1939 houses still require modernisation.

Sir J. Gilmour: Would my hon. Friend agree that there is a very large job to be done in bringing houses up to the proper standards for modern requirements? Is he satisfied that the date he set for the extra improvement grants gives sufficient time for this work to be undertaken?

Mr. Younger: I agree that there is a lot of work to be done on this in the coming years. I am sure my hon. Friend will be as encouraged as I am to know that the total number of houses owned by

local authorities which were improved in the year 1971 was 24,859. This compares with 10,790 in 1960, 9,700 in 1968 and 3,500 in 1967. The object of the terminal date on the scheme is to encourage authorities to get ahead as quickly as possible with the work.

Mr. Sillars: In any modernisation programme will the Under-Secretary give consideration in the very near future to making coal-fired central heating an integral part of the programme, to safeguard jobs in mining areas?

Mr. Younger: That is a matter for consideration by the local authorities concerned.

Glasgow-Coatbridge-Airdrie Expressway

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when the Coatbridge and Airdrie stretch of the Glasgow transport plan is likely to be approved and started; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Younger: The first stage within Coatbridge, of a new east-west primary route on the line of the Glasgow-Coatbridge-Airdrie expressway recommended by the Greater Glasgow Transportation Study, is included in the preparation list of schemes to be authorised during the present financial year. I will consider further stages as they are put forward by the local highway authorities concerned.

Mr. Dempsey: Will the Minister accept my thanks for that informative reply? Is he aware that the delay in producing firm proposals has jeopardised industrial development in my area, which is top of the unemployment league in Scotland? Can he do his best to live up to the timetable so that we can get something moving in this direction?

Mr. Younger: I thank the hon. Member for his initial remarks. I agree that it is necessary to get ahead with these matters as quickly as possible, particularly on industrial development.

Mr. Dempsey: I thank the hon. Gentleman.

Urban Renewal

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how much money has now been allocated to local authorities under the Urban Renewal Scheme.

Mr. Younger: Twenty-three applications—some comprising a number of minor schemes—have been received from local authorities for grant under the special £1 million environmental recovery scheme. The total grant represented by these applications is £446,000. Two have been approved, one is being approved today and others are about to be approved.

Mr. Dalyell: Are more than 23 expected?

Mr. Younger: Yes. We expect that a good number of local authorities have still not had time since 7th February to prepare schemes. But we are encouraged by the initial response.

Mr. Grimond: Can the Under-Secretary say whether this takes account of the announcement by the Secretary of State for the Environment during the Budget debate? I take it that it does not. Will Scotland be affected by the announcement that further funds will be available for urban renewal and related purposes?

Mr. Younger: The scheme is only a small part of the total amount of Government help for improving the environment and does not include west-central Scotland and the Glasgow area, which have their own scheme. But it will be up to us to consider, if and when the £1 million is exhausted, whether it is necessary to provide more money. In the meantime, to get this amount of money between 7th February and now is a good achievement.

Mr. Brewis: Can my hon. Friend tell me how Operation Facelift is getting on in Glasgow?

Mr. Younger: That is another question. I understand, however, that it is going well, and my hon. Friend may have noticed that a certain amount of publicity material is going out on this which has been very helpful.

Prescription Charges

Mr. David Steel: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will amend the National Health Service (Charges for Drugs and Appliances) (Scotland) Regulations so as to grant a one year exemption from prescription

charges to any woman whose child is either stillborn or dies within the first year of birth.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education, Scottish Office (Mr. Hector Monro): No, Sir. Much as I sympathise with these mothers, the existing arrangements already ensure that exemption is available for anyone who cannot afford to pay the charge for any prescriptions she may need.

Mr. Steel: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that is identical to the answer I was given yesterday by his hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services? Will not he listen to the representations of the medical profession in Scotland, through the Scottish Association of Executive Councils, and consider the small cost of removing this rather cruel and heartless regulation?

Mr. Monro: When he puts down the same Question, I am sure the hon. Gentleman will expect to get the same answer. My Department and I have considered the views of the bodies he mentioned, but at present there is no intention of changing the regulations.

Rents (New Towns)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what directive has been issued by him to new town development corporations on the level of house rents.

Mr. Younger: New town development corporations were officially informed in October last year that having regard to the White Paper on the Reform of Housing Finance in Scotland (Cmnd. 4727) they were expected to fix their rents under broadly similar arrangements to those applying to local authorities and with the same limitations on average and maximum increases in standard rents.

Mr. Hamilton: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us what the average increase in the rent is expected to be, whether the directive indicated to the corporations that they were to have an annual increase in rent over the next four or five years, and whether there will be an amendment to their existing rebate scheme or they will be asked to submit to the scheme prepared by the Government?

Mr. Younger: As I said in my original answer, their progression of rents will be the same as that for local authorities—that is, a maximum average weekly increase of 50p in a year with a weekly maximum for any individual of 75p in a year. I understand that the new towns are to bring the rebate schemes into line with the model scheme. This produces substantial reductions in standard rents for those in need.

Mr. John Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman take the opportunity of explaining to the House why he is proposing for the new towns and other local authorities increases in rents related to the needs of the person and his capacity to pay but is not introducing that principle into housing improvement grants? Why not have a means test for housing improvement grants if there is a means test for council house rents in the new towns?

Mr. Younger: I do not agree that the two points are necessarily connected. The question of improvement grants is a separate matter. It is necessary to have a uniform national rent rebate scheme so that all tenants in need may be protected from having to pay a rent they cannot afford. I should have thought the Opposition would welcome such a scheme very warmly.

Mr. Eadie: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we are informed that the new town corporations had a meeting and decided collectively that they would introduce rents in accordance with the White Paper? Does he not agree that it pays scant regard to the functions of parliamentary democracy that a corporation should seek to implement a Bill before it had become the law of the land?

Mr. Younger: As nobody, not even a local authority, is obliged to do anything before a Bill becomes the law of the land, I cannot see how that is so. The new towns have made their decisions in a sensible way in anticipation of legislation, but they are not obliged to do so until it is law.

Mr. Hamilton: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's answers, I beg to give notice that I will seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

National Tree Planting Year

Mr. Sydney Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has for his Department to encourage Scotland to support and co-operate in the National Tree Planting Year in 1973.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gordon Campbell): I am consulting the Scottish local authority associations about how best to encourage a nationwide tree planting effort.

Mr. Chapman: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he know that since my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment accepted my proposal that 1973 should be a national tree planting year I have received many letters from Scotsmen supporting the venture, the whole purpose of which is to show what a dramatic improvement in their urban environment can be made by people living in towns and cities at relatively little cost?

Mr. Campbell: We are glad in Scotland to be joining in the praiseworthy purpose of improvement of the urban environment, and we have a very large tree planting programme on the forestry side.

Mr. Maclennan: Is not the Secretary of State aware of the large question mark that hangs over the future of the Forestry Commission's planting in Scotland? We have had to wait a long time for the completion of the Government's review of policy on that, When does he propose to announce its result?

Mr. Campbell: A large percentage of Great Britain planting is put down in Scotland. Reviews of the exact figures are continuously carried out by Governments of the day.

Mr. Ewing: Will the right hon. Gentleman convey to his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hands worth (Mr. Sydney Chapman) the fact that anything that brings work to Scotland—tree planting or anything else—is welcome against the background of our very high unemployment figures, brought about by the present Government?

Mr. Campbell: What the hon. Gentleman said at the beginning of his question is accepted, as is shown by the various


schemes for the improvement of the environment mentioned by my hon. Friend. In particular, aid will be available where appropriate under the derelict land rehabilitation programme, the provisions for the improvement of the amenities of residential areas and the special schemes for environmental improvement.

Building Industry

Mr. Strang: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will commission a report into the state of the building industry in Scotland.

Mr. Younger: No, Sir.

Mr. Strang: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that building land is now being sold in Edinburgh at over £30,000 an acre? What action will the Government take to stop young couples who want to buy a house putting over £1,000 into the pockets of the land speculators?

Mr. Younger: The increase in house prices causes great concern to many people, but it is necessary not to get the facts wrong. The hon. Gentleman may have noticed that the recent survey by the Nationwide Building Society showed that in the years 1966–71 the increase in house prices in Great Britain as a whole was 52 per cent. whereas in Scotland it was only 34 per cent. We are keeping the matter closely under watch, and we shall help if there is anything we can do.

Sir J. Gilmour: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is an imbalance of the trades within the building trade and that pushing on with the modernisation of houses brings into play the sort of trades not catered for in the industrial type of building that we have now? If we push forward with modernising existing houses we can utilise much more of the building labour available in Scotland.

Mr. Younger: I agree that in order to get a general housing policy which makes sense it is necessary to consider every form of housing at the same time. It is no use thinking that one form of housing alone can solve our problems, and to that extent I warmly agree with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Ross: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the price increases are becoming scandalous in Scotland, not least in his own constituency? Does he think it

was the best use of his time to open a group of eight houses costing £20,000 each? Would he not do far better to look into why the price is so high?

Mr. Younger: With respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I will decide what I do in my constituency, and not he. As the right hon. Gentleman should know, the firm that built those houses builds a large number of houses throughout Scotland at very low prices by normal standards. It is selling some at under £5,000 each right now. I have encouraged local authorities to make more land available, which is the best way to bring the price down.

Mr. Douglas: While the hon. Gentleman is right in saying that what he does in his own constituency is for him to decide, does he recognise that his responsibilities in Scottish affairs make it incumbent upon him to bring down the price of houses in Scotland? The rate of increase is astronomical, particularly in Edinburgh. What has been the rate of increase since the Government came to office?

Mr. Younger: I only wish the hon. Gentleman's Government had taken that view when they were in office. They imposed the burden of selective employment tax on the building industry which directly put up house prices. The hon. Gentleman may have noticed, in the new industrial development arrangements which were announced recently, the grant for the purchase of plant and machinery in the building and construction industry, which should be of some help.

Day Centres (Handicapped Children)

Mr. Adam Hunter: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give an estimate of the demand for the provision of day centres for severely mentally handicapped children in the county of Fife.

Mr. Monro: The local authorities concerned are in the best position to estimate local requirements, but about 20 places per 100,000 population are needed in a typical area.

Mr. Hunter: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. The indication in my part of Fife is that there is great demand for these services. Is he aware that doubt exists as to which organisation


should be responsible for the services—the hospital authorities or the social work department? Does he intend in the near future to allocate funds to social work departments to provide day centres?

Mr. Monro: I expect shortly to issue to local authorities a circular of guidance on services and facilities required for the mentally handicapped. This will include an indication of the scale of provision of day care centres regarded as desirable. I am sure that the local authorities in general will be willing to shoulder their responsibilities to meet local needs of this kind. There is a rapid increase in expenditure by the social works services and this is, of course, eligible for rate support grant.

Power Stations (Conversion)

Mr. Eadie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has held with the Scottish Area of the National Union of Mineworkers about the conversion of coal-fired power stations.

Mr. Younger: I met representatives of the Scottish Area of the National Union of Mineworkers in Glasgow on 3rd May, 1971, to discuss the proposed conversion of Portobello power station.

Mr. Eadie: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that it is a rather new concept of the Government, since they are pledged to create more jobs, if they are to consider a £2·1 million power station conversion from coal-firing to oil-firing, a consequence of which would be the loss of about 1,400 more jobs to the coal industry? Can he give an assurance that he will not pursue this rather strange contradiction?

Mr. Younger: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, we have had a proposal from the South of Scotland Electricity Board that this station should be converted. We are considering it in the same way that we and our predecessors have considered similar proposals—in the light of the cost involved, of fuel policy generally, and of the social consequences. We are considering the matter very fully in the light of all these considerations.

Sir G. Nabarro: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry consistently refuses to answer on matters of

fuel policy, and that I have been endeavouring to extract from him for the last three months his intentions during the next seven years as to the division of fuel between coal, oil and nuclear energy for the whole United Kingdom, because under the Electricity (Scotland) Act, 1955, there is only one grid and we want to know whether the grid is to be fed by any coal-fired power stations in Scotland in future?

Mr. Younger: The same position in Scotland applies as before—that decisions about future fuel policy and power stations must be taken in the light of the full studies being made on a United Kingdom basis. Any question on that is for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

Mr. Ross: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is not the first time that this proposal has been put to the Scottish Office? Before he makes a decision will he remember that it is particularly important at present to preserve every job one can in Scotland? When can he make his decision?

Mr. Younger: I confirm that that is one of the things we shall be considering in making the decision, the date of which I am unable to give the right hon. Gentleman. We will consider the proposal fully in the light of all the considerations, as is usually done.

Geriatric Beds (Fife)

Mr. Gourlay: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what reply he has received from the South-East Regional Hospital Board to his representations for an accelerated provision of geriatric beds in Fife, arising from the delegation to St. Andrew's House on 17th March.

Mr. Monro: The board has reviewed its plans and has made proposals which will enable the provision of 60 beds in Glenrothes to start in 1974 instead of only a first phase of 30 beds; these proposals are being urgently considered. Thirty-five additional beds will become available at Cameron Hospital in 1973 by conversion of an existing ward; tide other schemes which will start between 1972 and 1975 will provide a further 360 beds.

Mr. Gourlay: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, while he has made some progress since 17th March, he has still given


a disappointing reply? I thought we had made him aware of the tragic circumstances which obtain in Fife and that in any case Kirkcaldy area is most in need of beds. I ask the hon. Gentleman to be bold and demand from the Treasury the extra money required to remedy the worst position in Scotland, which is in Fife.

Mr. Monro: I was grateful to receive the deputation led by the hon. Gentleman, the hon. Member for Dunfermline Burghs (Mr. Adam Hunter) and my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour). I felt that the discussion we had was most valuable. The hon. Gentleman must appreciate that Fife is receiving a very fair proportion of the money spent on geriatric accommodation, and if it is possible for the planning of the new provision at the Victoria Hospital to be expedited it could start on site at the end of 1974.

Primary Schools

Mr. Ewing: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make available additional financial assistance to education authorities to accelerate the primary school building programme.

Mr. Monro: My right hon. Friend has already done so. Capital investment to the value of £9·5 million was allocated in July of last year for primary school improvements and replacements starting in the period to March, 1973; and the additional works programme includes £16·8 million for primary school building projects.

Mr. Ewing: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that recently I have been in correspondence with him about two primary school problems in my constituency—Grangemouth Primary School and Comely Park Primary School? Does not he agree that the Stirling County Education Authority is a very good one and that it wants to solve this problem? Is he aware that in talks I have had with members of the authority, their complaint is that insufficient capital resources are available? As my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Gourlay) has said, will the hon. Gentleman be bold and demand that more resources be allocated to this very important part of education?

Mr. Monro: I have nothing to add to what I have written to the hon. Gentleman on this matter. I remind him and the Opposition that in the last four years of Labour Government Stirling received £510,000 for primary school building, whereas in our two years of office it has received £880,000.

Hunterston

Mr. Lambie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is now in a position to report on the negotiations to establish an iron ore terminal at Hunterston.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: This is a matter for the British Steel Corporation and the Clyde Port Authority. I understand that discussions between them are still in progress.

Mr. Lambie: I am disappointed by that reply. It is the same as I have been receiving for the last two years. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that last night Dr. Finniston, Chief Executive of the British Steel Corporation, confirmed that the development engineering department of the General Steels Division at Mother well is to be closed? Is he further aware that this department has taken part in the planning of the iron ore terminal at Hunterston? Does not this confirm fears which are being expressed in Scotland, coupled with the right hon. Gentleman's reply today, that the iron ore terminal will never be completed?

Mr. Campbell: I hope that the hon. Gentleman has observed during those two years that on 31st January last the corporation announced that it was to go ahead with the iron ore terminal at Hunterston. According to a report in one of the Scottish newspapers, Dr. Finniston said last night
I am telling you that a £26 million ore terminal at Hunterston will be built.

Mr. Douglas: Will the right hon. Gentleman enlighten us about the work undertaken by the Hunterston Development Company? What plans and proposals have been submitted by the company for the development of the very valuable land site there? It is all very well saying that this is a subject for the British Steel Corporation to determine.


but what about the right hon. Gentleman's own responsibility?

Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman is right—this is a separate point. The Hunterston Development Company was set up with the assistance of the Government last year in order to carry out the necessary preliminary work before any major development at Hunterston. But a start on the terminal need not necessarily await the feasibility study commissioned by the company.

Scottish Assembly

Mr. James Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make a statement on his official meeting on 27th March with the Scottish Assembly.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already told the House, the Standing Commission of the Scottish Assembly welcomed the Government's new regional measures and suggested that certain further measures be considered.—[Vol. 834, c. 230.]

Mr. Hamilton: In the discussion with the Assembly delegates about the situation in Scotland did the right hon. Gentleman remember that we have over 150,000 unemployed in Scotland, and does he realise that since he had that discussion two factories in my constituency have been closed? Can he now give us some assurance that in discussions, not only with those delegates but also with Members from this side of the House, he will tell us what he is going to do, at least to give some hope to Scotland, and will he give an undertaking to the people in Scotland that they are not forgotten?

Mr. Campbell: In the discussion, which went on for nearly two hours, the question of the high unemployment in Scotland was, of course, one of the matters which was underlying the discussion. The particular points which have just been announced were welcomed, such as free depreciation over the whole country, the setting up of a new industrial development office in Scotland which would be able to take initiatives besides administering grants and loans north of the Border and, particularly equal treatment to industry wishing to expand

as to incoming industry, thereby removing an anomaly which, incidentally, resulted from the measures introduced by the last Government.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: While welcoming its splendid work, which has been very widely welcomed, may I ask my right hon. Friend to tell us what further measures were suggested at this meeting?

Mr. Campbell: Yes. There were discussions about how R.E.P. would be phased out and what might replace it, and there was a catalogue of a number of matters about which I can tell my hon. Friend, but I cannot give him the total now. We were mainly concerned with what could be done to improve the prospects for employment.

Mr. Ross: Bearing in mind that this time last year the Secretary of State told us that he expected there would be an improvement in the employment position in Scotland by the end of that year, and that by that time it was worse than it had ever been, could the right hon. Gentleman venture to predict today when he expects to see an improvement in the figures, and by how much?

Mr. Campbell: The right hon. Gentleman has been in this House long enough—some would say too long—

Mr. Dalyell: Cheap.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Campbell: —wait for it—to know that Governments have never made predictions and forecasts on unemployment figures ahead. The right hon. Gentleman referred to something I said, but I was then expressing a hope—[Hon. Members: "Ah".]—about employment, and the hope was shared, I thought, at the time by both sides of the House.

Mr. Ross: Since I have been long enough here to take note of the right hon. Gentleman's answers and consistently to hang his own words around his neck, may I suggest to him that he went further than that and said there would be an improvement? As there has been no improvement I am asking him now whether he expects that there will be an improvement in the employment figures by the end of this year?

Mr. Campbell: I am now expressing a similar hope. Of course, it is our intention to do all we can to improve the figures, but I cannot make a forecast.

Selective Schools

Mr. MacArthur: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a further statement about the future of local authority selective schools.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I assume my hon. Friend is referring to the proposals put to me by Glasgow Education Authority for the reorganisation of some of its selective schools. I have replied to the authority and it has asked for a meeting to discuss my letter. This meeting has been arranged for 14th April.

Mr. MacArthur: When that meeting takes place will my right hon. Friend reject any proposals which make educational nonsense? Will he defer the whole question of the schools until the structure of local government is reformed, and will he also make arrangements for the usual intake of pupils into these excellent schools for the coming academic year?

Mr. Campbell: On the first point, no amendments to the authority's schemes have yet been received so I do not have proposals which I can accept or reject. As regards intake schemes for the future I have told the corporation that I am assuming that it will be going ahead with its existing normal schemes till a decision has been made about future changes.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the people of Glasgow—the electors of Glasgow—have already decided on this and that, whatever agreements he may be able to reach on Friday about improving organisational arrangements, the principle that there should be no further selective intake of pupils has been firmly established? Will the right hon. Gentleman at least accept that the electors of Glasgow have already come to a decision on that?

Mr. Campbell: No, I would not accept that the decision to stop intake has been taken. Secondly, I would not accept that the electors of Glasgow have decided on this question. I have received no fewer than 6,104 separate letters up to today containing approximately 48,000 signatures,

and in petitions as well, and only 36 of the letters are in favour of the first proposals put forward by the corporation.

Mr. Buchan: The right hon. Gentleman cannot get away with that. Will he confirm that according to his own circular he must allow the local authorities to adopt the form of reorganisation which they desire? Secondly, will he withdraw his remark that the people of Glasgow have not decided this issue? They did, and they did so decisively at the last local elections.

Mr. Campbell: On the first point, a scheme must make sense and pass certain basic tests if the Secretary of State is to give his approval under the Acts. Secondly I will not withdraw that remark about the Glasgow electors. There were a number of matters before them at the time of the election, and I do not believe that this was one on which they took a decision at that time.

Fee-Paying Schools (Handicapped Children)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland for how long each of the private fee-paying schools providing for mentally-handicapped and other handicapped children has been provisionally registered; and how many similar schools have been ordered to close in the last 10 years.

Mr. Monro: Corsbie Hall School, Thornton, has been provisionally registered for 18 months, the Monken Hadley School, Newton Stewart, formerly fully registered as Corsbie Hall School, Newton Stewart, for four and a half months following a change of proprietor, and a new school, Merton Hall, Newton Stewart, for two and a half months. No school has been ordered to close in the last 10 years.

Mr. Hamilton: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that for 18 months Corsbie Hall School has been occupied by 50 or more children who are handicapped in one way or another and that some of the staff, if not all, are unqualified academically in any way whatever? Does he not recall that the English Secretary of State for Education advised English local education authorities to withdraw their children because it was thought the school was inadequate, and


that that recommendation was based on a report made by the Scottish Education Department? This is an extremely unsatisfactory situation. Can the hon. Gentleman indicate what was the result of the latest inspection at Corsbie Hall?

Mr. Monro: The latest inspection was carried out three weeks ago. I have not yet studied the report—

Mr. William Hannan: Why?

Mr. Monro: It is no use giving answers about a report before one has studied it. I shall study it and when I have studied it, and in good time, I will make an announcement. I think the hon. Gentleman is being a little hard on this school at the present time. A school must be allowed to settle down and time allowed for the carrying out of improvements which have been suggested. It does not follow, however, that conditions during that period are intolerable. Indeed, if they were I would not allow them to go on.

Fishing Industry (Cameron Report)

Mr. Strang: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has completed his consultations on the Cameron Report; and if he will make a statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): Consultations are continuing, following the European Economic Community settlement, but I am not yet in a position to make a statement.

Mr. Strang: Is the Under-Secretary of State aware that there is some concern in the inshore fishing industry about the recommendations contained in the report and about what may be done? Can he indicate when he is likely to make a formal statement?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am sure that the hon. Member appreciates that it would be wrong to give an indication till the consultations are completed. They were conducted with the agreement of the industry during the Common Market negotiations. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are having discussions, and when we come to a conclusion I will announce our intentions.

Nursery Classes

Mr. Adam Hunter: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of Scottish education costs goes on the provision of nursery classes; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Monro: Education authorities do not distinguish between expenditure on nursery education and other kinds of school education in their accounts. It is estimated that £1·4 million, representing 0·8 per cent. of local authority current expenditure on education, was spent on nursery education in the financial year 1970–71.

Mr. Hunter: Does not the 0·8 per cent. compare very unfavourably with the rest of the United Kingdom where I understand that the figure is 2 per cent. of the total cost of education? Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the growth of nursery education in Scotland is far too slow, and will he say what progress is being made?

Mr. Monro: Yes, I agree that it is a small proportion and I should like to see it increased as soon as the resources are available. It is small in relation to education expenditure as a whole because successive Governments have been unable to allow a general expansion of nursery education in the face of prior claims from the rest of the education services. From information which has recently come before us a general tendency for the emphasis to go towards the under-fives can be seen.

Mr. David Steel: Does the Under-secretary accept that training for the under-fives should be done as much as possible with the participation of the parents? To this end has any guidance or encouragement been given to local authorities to provide facilities free of charge to properly organised play groups?

Mr. Monro: Certainly in the wider sense authorities have been encouraged under the urban programme to go ahead, but each education authority by its own initiative can encourage play groups.

Mr. Buchan: Will the Minister go further—this is not a parliamentary point—and agree that the figures are grossly inadequate? Will he further agree that it is generally recognised that we can get


a better return from investment in nursery education than from any other aspect of education and that it is now a "must"?

Mr. Monro: I think the hon. Gentleman will realise that there has been a huge increase in expenditure in recent years on primary and secondary education. As the facilities become adequate—and they are well on the way to becoming so—we must change the emphasis to the under-fives.

Local Government

Mr. Eadie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what further consultations he proposes to have with local authorities about his draft boundary proposals in the reorganisation of local government.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: My right hon. Friend has already had full consultations with local authorities on local government boundaries. Consultations about electoral divisions are still proceeding.

Mr. Eadie: The hon. Gentleman must be aware of the grave disquiet about the draft boundary proposals. Will he assure the House that there will not be inflicted upon us the type of protests we are receiving from every English local authority about the boundary proposals? Will he do a better job than that?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I can and will do a very good job. He may not have been in the House on 15th March when I gave an assurance and spelt out the procedures for consideration of the proposals. He may also have omitted to recognise that the proposals we put forward are of a provisional nature and subject to consultation and discussion.

Mr. Clark Hutchison: Does my hon. Friend know that Edinburgh should remain an all-purpose authority and that that is the wish of all the citizens of Edinburgh?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I know that that is the wish of my hon. Friend but it does not really arise from the Question.

Mr. Ross: I believe that Lady Tweedsmuir was in charge of these negotiations. Which Minister is now in charge?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State takes responsibility for the negotiations. My Department is dealing with electoral reform to which the Question specifically refers.

Mr. Maclennan: On a point of order. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether you will bear in mind that the Government have refused to give parliamentary time to debate the question of local government reform in Scotland?

Mr. Speaker: No question of order can arise on that.

Mr. Lambie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now postpone the proposed reorganisation of local government in Scotland in order to carry out an investigation into local government finance.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: No, Sir. The Green Paper published last July, together with public discussion and consultation, provides an adequate basis for reaching decisions.

Mr. Lambie: As the Government are not prepared to postpone the reorganisation of local government in Scotland until an investigation has been undertaken into local government finance, surely we are entitled to a White Paper on local government finance which will clearly spell out the Government's intention of retaining the present system of financing local government expenditure from the rates.

Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman's argument is with his own Front Bench. When the Wheatley Royal Commission was set up by the previous Government the question of finance was specifically excluded from its remit and no other Royal Commission or body was given the task of considering it. When we came to office in June, 1970, it was nine months after the Wheatley Commission had reported and still there had been no outside inquiry. An internal inquiry had been started which we naturally had to finish.

Sir J. Gilmour: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Green Paper on how rating should be carried out in future has not met with satisfaction from any body of responsible people and that it is


high time a fresh look was taken at this matter?

Mr. Campbell: The Green Paper is a paper for discussion. I, too, am well aware of the imperfections of the rating system, but no one yet in the discussions—and I invite anyone to do so now—has put forward an alternative practical constructive proposal.

Mr. Maclennan: Will the Secretary of State postpone the proposed reorganisation of local government in Scotland until he has taken on board the arguments put forward in Sutherland that his decision to stand his own proposals on their head with regard to the Burgh of Tain and exclude it from Sutherland is deliberately intended to deprive Sutherland of the benefits and developments of the Inner Moray Firth area? If he will not do that, will he accede to the request I have made time and again to authorise the crossing of the Dornoch Firth?

Mr. Campbell: As I was on the outskirts of Tain only last Thursday, I am well aware that there are contrary views.

Health Centre (Burntisland)

Mr. Gourlay: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the reasons for the delay in starting the building of the new health centre in Burntisland.

Mr. Monro: I understand that Fife County Council still intends to start building Burntisland health centre before the end of 1972, as planned.

Mr. Gourlay: Is the Minister aware that the impression is abroad in Burntisland that bureaucratic red tape in his Department is causing the delay? Will he sharpen his scissors and see that the building is started soon? There is a belief that the height of the handles on the doors is one reason why his Department will not approve the plans.

Mr. Monro: There has been no delay in my Department over the plans. There naturally has had to be consultation, and the building will go ahead this year as was decided some time ago.

Bellshill and Uddingston

Mr. James Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to announce his decision on the town maps and comprehensive develop-

ment proposals for Bellshill and Uddingston.

Mr. Younger: By the end of this week.

Mr. Hamilton: I am pleased to receive that reply. It is the quickest time I have had from the Government since they came to office.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

A57, Rother Valley

Mr. Hardy: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if the proposed increased expenditure upon road construction which was recently announced will provide for further or earlier improvement of the A57, particularly in the Rother Valley area.

The Minister for Transport Industries (Mr. John Peyton): The east-west link road scheme, Mosborough, which my hon. Friend has included in the preparation list, connects with the proposed expressway. Consideration is being given to an extension of the link road to the M1.

Mr. Hardy: I am grateful for that information about the M1 link with the Mosborough expressway. Will the right hon. Gentleman give comfort to my constituency by saying when he expects the work to be completed? Does he agree that the easing of the problems which he expects to result from the provision of a link road will not mean that the A57 becomes less of a problem in the Rother Valley? Will he further agree—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has already asked two supplementary questions.

Mr. Peyton: Much as I should like to give some comfort to the hon. Gentleman's constituents, I can say no more than that I promise to write to the hon. Gentleman as soon as a decision is made.

Mr. Mulley: Does the Minister's appearance at the Box to deal with Questions concerning roads mean that he has now taken over departmental responsibility for road matters? If so, will he now announce the long delayed decision about the Sheffield-Manchester motorway?

Mr. Peyton: No, Sir, it means nothing of the kind. It simply means that I am obliging my right hon. Friend.

Motor Vehicles (Insurance)

Mr. Golding: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will establish a committee of inquiry into ways of ensuring that cars are insured.

Mr. Peyton: No, Sir.

Mr. Golding: Is the Minister aware that the temptation to evade insurance has greatly increased with the rapidly rising cost of premiums? Will he take all steps to ensure that evasion does not arise?

Mr. Peyton: Yes. This is primarily a matter for the police. I believe we have the best means possible of ensuring that people comply with the law. I personally have the gravest doubts whether a proliferation of committees of inquiry would help with this or other problems.

Housing (London)

Mr. John D. Grant: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what reply he has given to the letter from the London Council of Social Service calling upon the Government to acknowledge London's housing shortage as an emergency and, in particular, suggesting a regional housing authority with executive powers.

Mr. Peyton: The terms of my right hon. Friend's reply are contained in a letter which he has sent to the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) on this matter and which is being published in the Official Report today in a Written Answer to the hon. Member.

Mr. Grant: Since I do not know the terms of the letter, it is difficult to pursue the matter—

Mr. Speaker: Order. As I have said before, a supplementary question is not compulsory.

Mr. Grant: Without feeling in any way compelled, may I nevertheless ask the Minister whether that letter accepts the request for a regional housing authority to be set up with executive powers? Will the Government stop dodging this

issue and act in the interest of many thousands of people on housing waiting lists in Islington and other inner London areas?

Mr. Peyton: No, Sir, the answer does not contain the undertaking for which the hon. Gentleman has asked. I would ask him to study my right hon. Friend's reply.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE

Civil Servants

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Minister for the Civil Service what discussions he is having with the First Division Association and other Civil Service unions about legal protection for civil servants.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Civil Service Department (Mr. Kenneth Baker): None, Sir.

Mr. Dalyell: We congratulate the hon. Gentleman on assuming office, but will he reflect on whether certain civil servants should be pilloried in public? While we await a debate on the Vehicle and General affair, will he address himself to the issue how civil servants are to be expected to defend themselves when evidence of their supposed shortcomings is not presented? Does he not agree that these are grave issues?

Mr. Baker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his words of welcome. The matter he raises is important for civil servants and is of some concern to my Department. The National Staff Side has made representations on the specific points which have been referred to and they have been noted by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

Mr. Sheldon: We congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his appointment and we wish him well. Will he go further into this matter? There are some civil servants who are now under considerable suspicion for the part they played in the Vehicle and General affair, and until a debate takes place in this House they will find themselves in a difficult position since there are no charges for them to answer and nobody to put their point of view. Will the hon. Gentleman press upon his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House the need for a debate so that these civil servants may have an opportunity of having their case made?

Mr. Baker: I will do that. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said on 9th March that there would be a debate in Government time. I am sure that it will take place shortly and I assure the hon. Member that the matter he raised concerning the three civil servants will be specifically dealt with in that debate.

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Minister for the Civil Service how many civil servants fewer were employed on 1st April, 1972, compared with 1st July. 1970.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: Information about the actual number of civil servants on 1st April, 1972, will be available early next month. Provision has been made in the 1972–73 Estimates for 694,632 staff on 1st April, 1972, on the basis described in the answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair) on 9th November, 1971. The number on 1st July, 1970, was 701,790

Sir G. Nabarro: May I be the first on this side of the House to congratulate my hon. Friend on his elevation to the Treasury Bench to answer for the bureaucracy? Will he try to do better than his predecessor, who during the last 20 months has presided over a miniscule contraction of the bureaucracy? Will he not try to give it a shove in accordance with Tory policy in the last election—which was to bring about a dramatic reduction in the size of the public service?

Mr. Baker: I thank my hon. Friend for his words of welcome, and I appreciate that they were deftly placed between my shoulder blades. I assure him that it is of concern to my Department and to other Government Departments that there should be constant pressure to ensure that the number of staff is no more than is needed.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: Has the Minister given any thought to resigning from the Government because of the failure to implement a Tory pledge? If there are to be extra civil servants, will he see that some of them are directed to the regions in the greatest possible numbers in the shortest possible time?

Mr. Baker: It is a little early in the day for me to consider the course of

action indicated by the hon. Member, but I assure him that one of the ongoing studies being carried out by my Department relates to the dispersal of civil servants. It will be well known to hon. Members opposite that a small delegation will visit the National Savings Bank in Glasgow on Friday.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the need for an urgent decision on the matter of dispersal of staff since this question bedevils the whole subject of the future of Parliament Square and Whitehall and, indeed, the whole environment of this part of London?

Mr. Baker: Yes, I assure my hon. Friend that the study on dispersal is going ahead. I hope that it will be completed by the end of this year.

Mr. Marks: Has any estimate been made of a decrease in the number of civil servants as a result of the provisions of the Housing Finance Bill which will lead to an inevitable increase in the number of local government servants?

Mr. Baker: Estimates have been made of the whole size of the public service, but I would point out that, in view of many of the programmes for the benefit of the people which we have introduced, additional civil servants will be required. If hon. Members opposite wish to criticise the Government on this matter, they must say whether they wish to see the attendance allowance and the family income supplement paid.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Minister for the Civil Service to what extent he estimates that all Government Departments will be able to reduce the number of non-industrial civil servants by 5 per cent. within the next two years and in the first two years of Great Britain's entry into the European Economic Community.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: The staff in Departments depends on the amount of work they are required to carry out.

Mr. Lewis: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Tories knew all these things when they made their election pledges, one of which was that in spite of any so-called improvements they would seek to reduce the number of civil servants? When do they intend to implement that policy?

Mr. Baker: I do not know whether the hon. Member was present when I answered my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro).

Mr. Lewis: Yes, I was.

Mr. Baker: Then he would have heard me say that there has been a modest reduction. The increased programmes of the present Government in terms of welfare, Home Office and Government training matters require some increase in those Departments.

Mr. Sydney Chapman: Although there can be no doubt that there may be a need for more civil servants to operate and administer the value-added tax when it comes into being, will my hon. Friend also confirm that when the Government's full fiscal reforms are implemented, in terms of tax credits and combined income tax and surtax, there will be a dramatic decrease in the number of civil servants?

Mr. Baker: Further Questions have been tabled on this matter, but my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made clear that there would be an increase in staff for V.A.T. but a substantial saving in staff through positive tax credits, if that scheme meets the approval of the House.

Mr. Sheldon: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that there will be a reduction in the numbers of non-industrial civil servants?

Mr. Baker: Like my predecessor I am reluctant to make estimates, but I can assure the hon. Member—who has great knowledge of and an interest in these matters—that there is constant vigilance in my Department, and among all Ministers, about the size of staffs they need to fulfil their programmes.

Veterinary Surgeons (Pay)

Mr. David Steel: asked the Minister for the Civil Service when he expects negotiations to be completed on the pay claim of the Ministry of Agriculture's veterinary surgeons, outstanding since January, 1971.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: Agreement could not be reached by negotiation, and the claim of the Institution of Professional Civil Servants was therefore referred to

the Civil Service Arbitration Tribunal. The tribunal has asked for further evidence, which will be submitted shortly; the tribunal's award will no doubt follow soon afterwards.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE

Royal Radar Establishment, Malvern

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Minister of State for Defence what changes in accommodation he contemplates, giving the numbers and future employment, for scientific grades of the Civil Service at the Royal Radar Establishment at Malvern, Worcestershire.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force (Lord Lambton): No changes are planned at present.

Sir G. Nabarro: Will my noble Friend bear in mind that in Malvern we have the greatest concentration of scientific civil servants in Britain, that 233 houses are owned by the Ministry of Defence and that the great majority of those civil servant tenants wish to buy their own houses from the Government? Since it is Government policy to sell council houses, should it not also be Government policy to sell houses to sitting tenants, especially when they are senior civil servants?

Lord Lambton: We will certainly look at this matter. But it is not strictly the Question on the Order Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Value-added Tax

Mr. Raphael Tuck: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many additional civil servants he estimates will be required in order to administer the value-added tax as now proposed.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give the net savings in the number of civil servants who will be required on the ending of purchase and selective employment tax and the introduction of the value-added tax.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Terence Higgins): The number of extra civil servants who will be required


on the ending of purchase and selective employment tax and the introduction of the value-added tax will, as I indicated in the Budget debate, be about 6,000. The exact number will be determined by the number of registered taxpayers.

Mr. Tuck: Is this another way of implementing the Prime Minister's promise that he would reduce the number of civil servants when he came to power? Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that the way to do this would be by operating a simple purchase tax instead of the value-added tax which will add so greatly to the existing number of civil servants? Will he consider this again?

Mr. Higgins: My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Civil Service Department answered the first part of that question just now. The change to V.A.T. is an important element in the Government's programme of tax reform, and we believe that the increase in the number of civil servants is justified by the elimination of the discriminations and inequities inherent in the tax system that V.A.T. will replace. Other elements in the Government's programme for the radical reform of taxation are expected to effect substantial economies.

Mr. Lewis: Is the figure of 6,000 the minimum or the maximum estimate, and can the hon. Gentleman say what is the actual or estimated cost per annum or per week of the 6,000 additional bureaucrats, to adopt the expression used by the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro)?

Mr. Higgins: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to my original reply he would have appreciated that I said it would depend on the number of registered taxpayers. We are not at the moment in a position to give a precise estimate. The hon. Gentleman's other point is a separate question. I have no doubt that if he feels it necessary the hon. Gentleman will table a specific Question on the matter.

Dame Irene Ward: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that as long as the additional civil servants enable this Government to improve the economic and social condition of the country I do not mind how many there are, because they

are doing a better job than they were under the present ridiculous Opposition?

Mr. Higgins: I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Civil Service Department will have noted what my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) has said.

Mr. Lipton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, with the aid of a number of unemployed constituents of mine, I am willing to come to his rescue?

Mr. Higgins: There has been a certain amount of schizophrenia opposite, especially on the regional aspects of this question. We have taken account of that in our overall point of view. But we shall administer the tax in the most efficient way possible, and the overall way in which V.A.T. has been designed has been influenced by considerations of efficiency in collecting the tax.

Sir F. Bennett: Looking back into recent history, is not it a fact that the Leader of the Opposition himself frankly admitted to the House that V.A.T. would be an inseparable part of joining the Common Market? Therefore may we be told what convolutions have taken place, apart from those of the Leader of the Opposition, that make a further additional number of civil servants necessary other than those who would have been recruited anyway had the Leader of the Opposition stuck to his policy?

Mr. Higgins: I am glad to say that I am not responsible for the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Joel Barnett: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that there is nothing which compels us to have a value added tax in 1973 as opposed to 1978? If it is the case that the number of civil servants will depend upon the extent of the registrations, will the hon. Gentleman consider increasing the exemption from £5,000 to £10,000, thereby reducing the number of additional civil servants that will be necessary?

Mr. Higgins: That is a matter which can be debated when we consider the Finance Bill. The Government have made it clear that we believe that V.A.T. is an important element in our overall reform of taxation and that the case for it is overwhelming.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINIMUM WAGE FOR AGRICULTURAL WORKERS

3.33 p.m.

Mr. Gavin Strang: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for a minimum wage for agricultural workers.
The disparity between the earnings of farm workers and other workers has now become indefensible. The latest figures for farm workers in England and Wales, released this month, show that the average weekly earnings of farm workers for the year ending December, 1971, were £21·6 for a 47·9 hour week. Recently the Department of Employment issued the results of its survey into the earnings of manual workers in the first week of October last year. They showed that the average earnings of manual workers covered by the survey were £30·93 for a week of 44·7 hours. The figure for manual workers in manufacturing industry was £31·37 for a week of 43·6 hours.
We have a situation where the gap between the earnings of farm workers and of workers in other industries is intolerable. It is a gap of about £10 a week. If one looks at the hourly earnings, bearing in mind that farm workers work longer hours than industrial workers, incredibly the average hourly earnings of a worker in manufacturing industry are no less than 66 per cent. higher than those of a farm worker.
It is sometimes argued that payments in kind to farm workers reduce the size of the disparity. That is simply not true. The now defunct National Board for Prices and Incomes conducted two inquiries into the wages of farm workers in England and Wales. Incidentally, the average earnings in Scotland are much the same as those in England and Wales. The Board's 1969 Report showed that non-monetary payments were insignificant and that, as farm specialisation increased, non-monetary payments as a percentage of earnings were becoming even less significant. The report also pointed out that the tied cottage system contained some very grave disadvantages for farm workers in terms of the lack of security of tenure, the fact that a worker had to give up his house on leaving

his job, and the additional obligations which living on a farm put on farm workers. It went on to cite further disadvantages that farm workers suffer in terms of the lack of occupational pension schemes and sick pay schemes.
The fact is that on the ground of social hardship it is imperative that farm workers obtain a substantial and immediate increase in their wages. However, it is not just a question of social hardship. Farm workers are now highly skilled. The day has long gone when it was simply a matter of having a great deal of stamina and strength. As highly skilled workers, farm workers should be remunerated accordingly.
Furthermore, there is a growing realisation that it is in the interests of agriculture to increase substantially the wages of farm workers. If we want the agricultural expansion that everyone talks about, we are reaching a situation where the drift of workers from the landwill put the programme in jeopardy. That is becoming increasingly recognised even in the National Farmers Union. In the last few weeks there have been instances of N.F.U. branches criticising the Agricultural Wages Board for not giving farm workers enough money.
This is not a new problem. The gap has been with us for a very long time. The worrying fact is that in recent years the gap between the standard of living of farm workers and of other workers has been increasing. Back in August, 1970, the unions representing farm workers, the National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers and the Transport and General Workers Union, put forward a claim to the Agricultural Wages Board for an £18 40-hour week. It was rejected. It was put forward again in 1971. Despite the fact that farm workers have had two increases in wages, the situation remains that the minimum wage of agricultural workers in England and Wales is £16·20 and the figure in Scotland is £16·40.
The Agricultural Wages Board, particularly the independent members of the board for England and Wales and for Scotland, have failed completely to face this problem. What I advocate is that the Government should allow us to get this Bill through, for it would give them power to bring in an immediate minimum wage of £22 for a 40-hour week for farm workers.
For farm workers the minimum is very important. The gap between their average earnings and the minimum is considerably smaller than that in other industries. Given that £22 minimum, I advocate that the Agricultural Wages Board should be allowed to continue over the next few years to close the gap completely. Eventually, I hope that agricultural workers will be amongst the better paid workers, since that is what their skill merits.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Gavin Strang, Mr. Norman Buchan, Dr. John Cunningham, Mr. John Mackintosh, and Mr. Eric Deakins.

MINIMUM WAGE FOR AGRICULTURAL WORKERS

Bill to provide for a minimum wage for agricultural workers, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday, 19th May, and to be printed. [Bill 120.]

Orders of the Day — SOUND BROADCASTING BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Clause 2

Provision by Authority of local sound broadcasting services

3.40 p.m.

Mr. Ivor Richard: I beg to move Amendment No. 71, in page 2, line 6 at end insert:
Provided that in respect of local sound broadcasting only the Minister and the Authority shall from time to time draw up and publish after consultation with all interested parties a statement setting out the criteria they shall adopt as to programme content and quality, advertising duration and nature, and the extent to which news programmes and minority interest programmes shall be catered for.
This is, frankly, a probing Amendment, and in its drafting it repeats in considerable detail a series of Amendments which we debated in Committee, I am afraid in the early hours of the morning but at only moderate length, on 16th December last year. It may be helpful if I briefly put the Amendment and the scope of it into its context, and if I then indicate to the Minister how perhaps he may answer the points that I am about to make, which, unfortunately, were not answered in the debate on the Amendments in December.
The Minister knows that one of our criticisms of the White Paper, and, indeed, of the Bill, is that we are providing a legislative framework within which the renamed I.T.A. is to operate, and that we are doing so merely by amending the Television Act, 1964, so as to include in the discretion which the renamed I.T.A. is to exercise authority to control commercial radio as well as commercial television.
We have had experience now over some years of the way in which the I.T.A. has operated in relation to television. It is now possible to answer with a considerable degree of precision what pro-portion of matter broadcast on television is likely to be news or news features.


It is now possible to say what proportion of matter broadcast on television is likely to be of local origin or of particularly local interest. One knows, for example, roughly how much of the time of the television output is likely to be devoted to general features, drama or music. One knows, too—and perhaps this is one of the most important aspects of the whole matter—approximately how much time per hour is to be devoted to advertisements. Also, generally speaking, one knows the sort of advertisements that one is likely to see, and the duration of each advertisement is known within fairly fine limits. The time at which advertisements are likely to appear in the programme is also known. Again, one can now say the number of hours in each week which are likely to be devoted by the I.T.A. to minority programmes, religious programmes and educational broadcasts.
None of those matters is as yet clear in relation to commercial radio. Although the I.T.A. has been operating in relation to television and, therefore, we have some information upon which to form a judgment there, we have no information upon which we can form any similar judgment in relation to the way in which commercial radio is to be operated.
These are matters of substance and not of detail. I think that the attitude of hon. Members, and certainly of the public outside, towards a commercial radio network would be influenced—if not wholly governed—by, for example, how much time in 24 hours was to be devoted to news or news features, minority interest programmes, drama, serious music, and so on. I think, therefore, that it would be in the interests of the I.B.A. and of the commercial radio structure which the Minister is proposing if we could have some more information and some more facts upon which to form a judgment about the desirability or otherwise of our proposals.

3.45 p.m.

In Committee I found that because of the way in which the Bill was drafted—I make no complaint about its drafting; it just happens to be rather a massive piece of legislation by reference—it was not open to us to probe in as much detail as we would have liked to do the number of minutes in each hour during which advertising was to be permitted. The Amendment is drafted in a form which,

frankly, is unsatisfactory in the sense that it does not pose the questions which we should like answered, but it is the only way in which it is possible to find a drafting peg upon which to hang these requests.

I therefore ask that in respect of local sound broadcasting only the Minister and the Authority shall from time to time draw up and publish after consultation with all interested parties a statement setting out the criteria they shall adopt as to programme content and quality. The phrase "programme content and quality" is designed specifically to cover the various matters raised in the six Amendments that we considered on 16th December.

I hope the Minister will be able to say something this afternoon about how much news and news features he sees it being obligatory for the commercial network to carry. I hope he will say something about what percentage of the time should be devoted to minority programmes, religious programmes and educational broadcasts. I hope, too, that he can reassure us about the next item in the Amendment; namely, the duration and nature of the advertising which is to be permitted. People are genuinely seeking information on all those matters, but, seek as they may, they will not find that information either in the Bill or in the whole of the Committee stage, which, as the House knows, was somewhat protracted.

We know one other thing, too, and that is that the Minister has been having detailed discussions with the I.T.A. about the way in which the Bill is to be operated should it become law. Indeed, it would be extraordinary if he had not had such discussions. I suspect that by now the I.T.A., about to be re-named the I.B.A., is pretty clear about how it will run the commercial radio network. I suspect that somewhere in the recesses of that organisation, and even in the recesses of the Ministry, there lurks, awaiting the light of day and parliamentary scrutiny, some fairly detailed information about how much time is to be devoted per hour to advertising, what sort of advertisements there will be, the duration of each advertisement, whether they can come only in a natural break, whether they should come at the beginning or at the end of a programme, how much time


should be given to minority programmes, religious programmes, educational broadcasts, and all the other matters referred to in the Amendment.

If that information is available, and I suspect that a lot of it is—or at least if it is not hard information the Minister and the I.T.A. have some fairly clear thoughts about the way in which they want to see the network operate in relation to those matters—it is incumbent upon the Minister to tell the House and the country the way in which it is to be done.

What we are talking about in the Amendment is the quality of the programmes that commercial radio will put out. We are talking about what sort of programmes will be put out, the extent to which they will be interrupted by advertisements, how much news will be permitted—or enforced, I trust—and so on. We are talking about all those things, and on none of them do we in the House or people in the country have the information which it is essential that we should have if we are to form a rational and sensible judgment.

I would therefore appeal to the Minister, even at this late hour, that he should—I hesitate to use the phrase "come clean", because that implies concealment, of which, being a generous man, I would acquit the Minister totally—consider it not a bad idea to take the House and the country a little more into his confidence than he has done so far on these very important issues.

Mr.Ray Mawby: The hon. and learned Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) has made it clear that the Amendment is a probing one, covering all the aspects of broadcasting. The Bill seeks only to amend and augment the Television Act, so presumably where it makes no change the rules of that Act will still apply. Therefore, the times and periodicity of advertisements would presumably coincide with those in that Act. I would expect my right hon. Friend to make that clear.
We are dealing here with a different form of communication, as our Committee debates showed. The Amendment does the House a service, because we can discuss the basic differences between television and radio. Not only because

television is laid out regionally and radio is to be local but for a number of other reasons, the system is basically different.
News features are dealt with in later Amendments. We discussed in Committee what should be the standard and length of news services.
The hon. and learned Member then mentioned programmes for minorities. Commercial radio should not be required to supply a service to the minority. We are always told that the B.B.C. sets out to supply a minority service, but in many cases it does not. If the B.B.C, whose sole income is licence revenue, is not prepared to provide minority interest programmes, we should not put that burden on commercial radio stations, which will be able to operate only so long as they get enough listeners to guarantee their advertising revenue.

Mr. Richard: I am not sure whether I made the point clear, in view of the flavour of some of the hon. Member's remarks. When I use the phrase "minority interest programmes" I am talking about taste and not about an identifiable group of people marked out by race or language—

Mr. Mawby: Mr. Mawby indicated assent.

Mr. Richard: If the hon. Member understands, then my intervention is superfluous. I was not sure he did.

Mr. Mawby: I quite take the hon. and learned Member's point. I was not trying to suggest that he was saying that one should cater to particular sections, whether they be sectarian or racial. It is a question of taste, of what the B.B.C. would call the "high cultural value" programme, the sort of programme that I immediately switch off. I switch over to what the B.B.C. calls the mass communication programme, because I enjoy that sort of programme much better.
This is the sort of programme that I talk about, because I am not one of the minority. The fact that the B.B.C. pays lip service to the cultural minorities and yet in its local sound broadcasting seems to have done very little about it does not suggest to me that we should tie down a commercial broadcasting station to provide that sort of programme when it can operate only with sufficient listeners to guarantee the revenue.

Mr. Phillip Whitehead: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that there are great dangers in the opposite argument, to which I believe his conclusions will lead him—that is, that these stations should go only for a lowest-common-denominator, maximum-revenue audience? Some of the minorities who have been extolled in his right hon. Friend's speeches about the Bill—suoh as the shoppers and motorists—might not be adequately served by these stations, without exhortation from the I.B.A.,if they were not sufficiently profitable.

Mr. Mawby: This is the question that we have argued for some time—who is best fitted to decide who will listen to a programme, the I.B.A. or a group of people who have their finger on the pulse of the potential listeners? Where an organisation has got over the first hurdle and has its contract to supply a service for a local sound broadcasting station, it is restricted because it is local rather than regional, and so has more problems than the television organisation. It will obviously try to produce a programme which will interest sufficient listeners to guarantee the listener ship upon which to get the advertising revenue.
Of course, it is right that the I.B.A. should be able to ensure that a station follows certain rules and is giving a proper news service. But at some point the local station operator is better fitted to decide what sort of programme his listeners will want. The I.B.A. has to lay down certain standards. For television these are in the principal Act, and the same sort of requirements will be made by the I.B.A. of a local broadcasting station as of a regional television station.
The Bill is designed to introduce commercial local radio. This is more restrictive than a regional radio service, because the operator has a much more restricted choice of advertising revenue. I want to make certain that if we pass the Bill the odds are not loaded against the operator when he is finally appointed so that there is no point in his continuing in business. I believe that it is right and proper that the I.B.A. should lay down a number of guidelines. Such guidelines are already laid down in the principal Act. I do not want any more restrictions upon the right of operation by the operator of the new local radio station than

there are on the regional television operators at the moment.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I welcome the Amendment proposed by myhon. and learned Friend the Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard). Although he does not intend to push it to a Division—[Interruption.]—I got that impression. We must wait and see. My impression was that he described it as a probing Amendment, and I should like to add one or two things to the probes. I like the idea of this Amendment because it seems to emphasise the responsibility of the Minister and the Authority.
The hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) said that too many restrictions on the local radio station will be onerous and irksome. If we do not have an Authority which does a real job, we stand in danger of getting an overall authority, a national broadcasting council, which will act more as a restrictive and censoring body than as an effective Authority. The price of avoidance of some special censorship is that the members of the Authority and the governors of the B.B.C. should do their jobs. If they do their jobs, we may avoid the development of some overall censorship body.
I think that the Minister and I share the view that a broadcasting council of a censoring character is an undesirable development. I hope that he will assure us that his successor takes the same view on this subject. It would be most undesirable to have an interventionist Minister of Posts and Telecommunications—an interventionist in the full sense of the word. The Minister, however excessively interventionist he may have been in the opinion of some of my hon. Friends on some subjects, has always taken the view that it is not his job to guide the nature of programmes. It is important that this principle shall be maintained by both the Minister and his successor. I hope that when he replies he will reaffirm not only that he continues to hold this opinion but that his successor has an identical view on this subject.

Mr. Norman Fowler: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman wants to be fair to those people who advocate a broadcasting council and that he recognises the distinction between a censoring body and a body able to give


redress to those people who are or who believe they are harmed by broadcasting activities.

Mr. Jenkins: When this subject was last examined in detail the Pilkington Committee drew attention to the wide variety of ideas about what such an overall body should do. Even those who were advocating such a body did not seem to be very clear as to its object. They began by advocating one purpose, namely, to provide an appeals organisation. Later, in answer to questions, they revealed that they had a more restrictive purpose at the back of their minds.
If we can avoid the establishment of some overall body, I take the view that that would be a good thing. I recognise that this can be done only if we are satisfied that the existing bodies are doing the sort of job which they were created to do. If we have a publicly appointed body to carry out the function of looking after national broadcasting, it would be rather absurd to establish a further publicly appointed body to look after the publicly appointed body we have already established. If we are to do that, why not have a super broadcasting council to make sure that the broadcasting council does its job? We could go on ad infinitum establishing body after body to supervise and further supervise.
Having got a Board of Governors and an Independent Broadcasting Authority, we have to ensure that these bodies carry out their functions properly. The object of the Amendment is to ensure that they carry out their jobs properly and to lay down certain guidelines indicating the sort of function which the Authority should exercise concerning local sound broadcasting.
We can talk about local sound broadcasting only in this context. I have been in danger of speaking a little too widely and now I bring myself back into order in the fear that, if I do not, you, Mr. Speaker, will point out that I have been talking in rather over-general terms.
There is some danger of the establishment of a censorship development. Not only do we have such amusing and interesting figures as Mr. Milton Shulman, but we have other people who take an interest in the establishment of a

restrictive attitude. One can understand sometimes that their motives are perfectly sound. I think that it would be a sad day if we were to establish a special censorship, because we can be sure that, whatever the censor did, he would be offending one group of people even if he managed to please another. I think that we would all want to try to avoid that.
In general terms I welcome the Amendment. I hope that the Minister will feel able to accept it, or at least to accept the spirit behind it. He may be able to tell us that the Authority will carry out these functions or suggestions which are proposed in the Amendment. It may be that it needs nothing more than an indication from him to ensure that the sort of job which the Amendment suggests should and will be done.
If the Authority is to act as a court of appeal, it must remain a little apart from the programme contractors. I think that this has been done in Independent Television, but less so in the B.B.C. When I was asked recently by a journalist who should succeed Lord Hill as Chairman of the Governors of the B.B.C, I said that it did not matter as long as he was a nonentity. The point is that we have too much of an executive chairman. If we have an executive chairman, he becomes responsible for the actions of the Authority, and the Authority loses that appeal capacity which it has if it is not in itself an executive body.
I commend the spirit behind the Amendment. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that spirit both on his own behalf and that of the right hon. Gentleman who will follow him in his present position.

Mr. Wilfred Proudfoot: I cannot possibly agree with the Amendment. I think that it has been drawn up for two reasons. First, it wants to stop commercial radio dead in its tracks; and, secondly, the Opposition do not understand what local radio will be like.
I am tempted to give the new Minister of Posts and Telecommunications a bit of a teach-in during this debate. I am sorry that he was not upstairs with us on the Bill. There will be an enormous change in radio in this country. The Amendment does not seem to recognise


that the B.B.C. will continue after commercial radio starts. It will have a minor audience, but it will continue. It should go after the minority audience, so enabling B.B.C. 3 to play more chamber music and put out even more exciting Press releases about its activities.
Meanwhile, commercial radio will maximise its audience, if it is wise, by a process of local involvement, with ring-in programmes and entertainment which the British public have never experienced in radio. I am sure that the public will enjoy these programmes and that it will be good business for the companies which are lucky enough to get licences.
The Amendment also assumes, as do hon. Members and the British Press, that there will be only one radio station in each locality. The faster we get competition between commercial radio stations, the better. The sooner the commercial boys hit each other on the head, the sooner hon. Members will not have to worry about excess profits being made. Competition will keep things in order.
When Lord Reith was organising the B.B.C. he went for the sort of service that would uplift the public and present what in his view were cultural or semi-cultural programmes. But most people are interested in their localities, local sport and activities, and most conversation in the HighStreet is concerned with these issues. The B.B.C. will never be able to provide the sort of local service about which we are speaking.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: The hon. Gentleman is a Yorkshireman and represents a Yorkshire constituency. Has he never listened to B.B.C. Radio Leeds, which provides precisely the service to which he looks forward via commercial radio? Does he agree that B.B.C. Radio Leeds provides a high level of local entertainment, as distinct from the sort of programmes that will be provided by commercial radio in the real world in which we live rather than in the idealised dream world which that hon. Gentleman appears to occupy?

Mr. Proudfoot: I am a Geordie by birth. Radio Leeds is local for only six measly hours a day. If commercial stations have any sense and want to make profits they will be local for 24 hours a day.
There is one big gap in the programmes put out by B.B.C. Leeds. They contain no advertisements. Whether or not hon. Gentlemen opposite like it, advertisements are an essential part of any community. Ask any housewife how essential it is for her to know where the local products are available and what is the ruling price of butter and so on. Housewives enjoy shopping and much of the conversation in which they indulge while shopping is about the mundane, everyday things of life.
In the same way, the local newspaper floats on a mini sea of advertising. Housewives buy the local paper for the advertisements and the fact that there is so much interest in local births, marriages and deaths proves the importance of the local scene.

Mr. Richard: The hon. Gentleman is talking about what loosely we have described as Radio Scunthorpe, a small radio station in a relatively small town in which the death of Mr. X is an important piece of information to disseminate. That will not be the structure under the Bill. We shall have Radio London, Radio Manchester, Radio Birmingham and Radio Glasgow. The hon. Gentleman ran a pirate station and his proud boast was that he was able to play the Top 40 three times in a 24-hour spell. Would he like to see commercial stations throughout Britain doing that?

Mr. Proud foot: No, not at all—[Interruption.]—because I would play to the market place. There is nothing wrong with the market place. It has a great deal more honesty than this place. The principle of a willing buyer and a willing seller is the law of commerce and when one is in the market place one can see precisely what is needed.
As I said, it is not a question of there being only one local radio station in one locality. Radio Scunthorpe would have five competitors, four B.B.C. channels and Radio Humberside, from Hull, which is a local radio station operated by the B.B.C.
At this time the fastest way to get the maximum audience for Radio Scunthorpe—and a 60 per cent. audience is available—would be the Top 40 format, but interspersed with news and local items, ring-in and swop-shop programmes, which would mean that Radio Scunthorpe would


probably not get through the Top 20 more than twice a day.
I agree with the demand of the Musicians' Union that there should not be more than 50 per cent. needle time. Local news programmes and information about the locality should ensure that 50 per cent needle time is ample. It is obvious that hon. Gentlemen opposite have never listened to the output of a commercial radio station.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Richard: The hon. Gentleman is being less than fair to my argument. The fact remains that we shall not get Radio Scunthorpe but, for example, Radio London serving eight million people. I am asking him, with Radio London as a regional rather than a local commercial station, why should there not be a distinct obligation written into the Bill to ensure that balanced programmes are provided, including the points set out in the Amendment?

Mr. Proudfoot: Because a balance will be demanded by the Authority and also because in London the listener will have five other channels from which to select. One need only twiddle the nob to receive five alternative B.B.C. stations. In my view that will be balance enough. Hon. Members should get away from thinking that every time the radio is switched on one must receive the same channel. I do not believe that the commercial stations in London, of which there will be two at least, should be asked to balance their programmes in the way the hon. and learned Gentleman suggests. The commercial nature of the programmes will induce balance because of the competition that will exist.
As for the amount of advertising that should be put out, if London had only one commercial transmitter it might transmit 45 minutes of commercials per hour, such would be the interest of the public. But when there is competition between commercial stations there will be a balance, just as there is among newspapers.
At present the Daily Telegraph runs pages of advertisements which I find a terrific drag, though I thoroughly enjoy its editorial matter. When local newspapers carry too much advertising people

say, "We are buying this paper no longer because it carries too many advertisements." Commercial radio will be balanced in the same way. Too many commercials will kill any audience.

Mr. Kaufman: Is the hon. Gentleman claiming that the Daily Telegraph maintains some sort of balance, despite his remarks, because it has the Daily Express and Daily Mail with which to compete? He lives in a dream world and when he speaks about his world he sometimes carries me with him, but suddenly I am brought back to reality as I think of this ghastly little Bill which will not create the sort of commercial station he envisages in his dream world.

Mr. Proudfoot: One must not speak of an individual station but of commercial radio generally. There is a balance in the national Press. One need look only at the spread of difference between, for example, The Times and the Sun

Mr. John Gorst: Does my hon. Friend agree that the word "balance" is wrong in this context? Instead of the horrible local or regional monopolies which are feared, we require the station operator not to balance his programmes but to offer a comprehensive service to the whole community, whatever that community may require. Balance does not come into it from this point of view. It is the whole community for which provision must be made.

Mr. Proudfoot: That is absolutely correct. On the subject of balance, the balance of the hon. and learned Member is completely different from mine. Presumably the B.B.C. producers in charge of Radio 3 say that they must have balance. So they put on half-an-hour of archaeology, half-an-hour of Beethoven and half-an-hour of highfalutin recipes—compared with Jimmy Young's simple recipes. So they have balance at a different level. The Times newspaper has balance at that level, and the Sun has balance at a completely different level, with a sports page, a crime page, and so on.

Mr. Whitehead: Would the hon. Gentleman's balance include paid advertising for the Conservative Party, such as that broadcast by his pirate station before the General Election?

Mr. Proudfoot: Did the hon. Gentleman ask whether I would accept paid advertising?

Mr. Whitehead: Paid advertisements for the Tory Party.

Mr. Proudfoot: Certainly—and for the Communist Party. I am interested only in the colour of their money in this respect. This subject is about freedom of expression. No one in this Chamber can say that advertisements should be censored and that political advertisements in this country should be eliminated from television and radio. That would be an absolute mystery to the man in the street when political parties can put advertisements in the newspapers. I claim to be the only chap who ran a radio station in Britain which sold advertising time to politicians. It was sold to a couple of councillors of Humberside during a local election. I see no evil in it, just as I see no evil in it in the United States.
The man in the street would be delighted for politicians to get off television, because they hog it when it is on all three channels as a party political broadcast. If politicians had to buy their time they would probably use it more wisely than they do today. Some of the worst television is the party political broadcast. I would sell advertisements to party politicians, certainly; but, at the same time, I would not expect them to go outside the bounds of decency in their advertising. Controls would operate, as they operate in all advertising.
On the topic of balance, local radio stations will be dramatically overbalanced in the direction of local topics. That is exactly how it should be. To try to debate the Clause without reference to the fact that the B.B.C. has much the lions' share of the sound broadcasting market, and will have it even when the Bill is passed, is quite incorrect. I ask my right hon. Friend to say—as he did in Committee—that 60 was the first number of stations that this country was to have. I ask my right hon. Friend's successor as Minister to realise that in many people's technical opinion we can have as many as 2,000 stations in this country. Then "local" will truly mean local, and there will be competition between commercial stations which will give great service to their communities.

Mr. Brian O'Malley: The hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Proudfoot) has an avowed mission in this House. I suppose that most Members of Parliament come here wanting to achieve something. Apparently what the hon. Gentleman wants to achieve is a reduction in the quality of programmes in broadcasting in this country. That is what he has tried to achieve in most of his speeches here. He began his speech by saying that if commercial radio were introduced into this country—I was not sure whether he meant commercial radio on the pattern that the Minister has proposed or his own pattern—there would be "an enormous change".
He said of the Amendment that it would stop commercial radio in its tracks. He says that he wants to see balance, but he disagrees with other people's ideas about balance. As far as I could see, not only from his speech today but from speeches he has made previously on this subject, his idea of balance is a set of scales, as it were, in which the Top 40 gramophone records are used in the morning and the Top 40 records, on the other side of the balance, are used in the afternoon. That is his sense of balance.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) pointed out, it is clear that the hon. Gentleman wants—he says so openly—a solid stream of canned music put out by disc jockeys. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman shakes his head. However, everything he has said over recent months leads me to believe that.
Obviously I must refer to the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst). In a pamphlet published in October, 1970, the Local Radio Association made it plain that it wanted unlimited needle time. Thus there is no difference between the two hon. Gentlemen, who speak, I think, with the authentic voice of many would-be commercial radio operators. They want to see a constant out-pouring of recorded music from their local radio stations, throughout the day.
We have had some victory over the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough in recent months. On Second Reading, he envisaged a local radio station broadcasting the Top 40 three times a day. My hon. Friends will have noticed that we have modified and influenced his thinking profoundly, in that he


now wants the Top 40 broadcast only twice a day instead of thrice. During our discussions we have had an impact on the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Gorst: Without any offerings to needle time or anything, the hon. Gentleman plays a most extraordinarily repetitive record. He continually trots out the lovely idea that one wants unlimited needle time, quoting from a pamphlet written by an organisation which he knows that I no longer represent. Nevertheless, he always gets the same answer from me, namely, that, as I see it, commercial local radio is primarily a news medium, augmented or supplemented by music. This is the way it ought to be seen and the way it operates best in other parts of the world. It is not fair, true or representative of the opinions he has expressed many times to suggest that nothing but wallpaper music is required of local radio stations. That is very far from the truth.

Mr. O'Malley: The difficulty is that when we have been concerned with the discussion of a Bill, and when discussions have taken place over several months, we all know one another's conditioned responses and reactions. The hon. Gentleman has made that reply to me on a number of occasions in the past. In reply, I am bound to say that if there is not this demand and need for a very large amount of recorded music, why does the Local Radio Association, which is not untypical of organisations and individuals who are interested in operating commercial radio in this country, say that it wants unlimited needle time?

Mr. Gorst: Ask the Association.

Mr. O'Malley: Even after months of discussion, precisely because of the views expressed by many would-be commercial operators outside the House, and because of views expressed by hon. Members opposite, within the music profession there is still a good deal of apprehension about the pattern of commercial radio in Britain. In Committee the Government gave some indication that they accepted that Governments in this country have a responsibility towards the maintenance of a healthy music profession. But having said that, Ministers have been remarkably coy about expanding those remarks in any way. The Minister knows

that one of the central questions which has to be settled before commercial radio can begin to operate is that of needle time agreements, which would be made between the Independent Broadcasting Authority, on the one hand, and the copyright organisation on the other.
I support the Amendment because, at the end of the Bill and after all the discussions, it gives the Minister the chance to indicate what he sees as the proper balance between musical programmes and other types of programme, and the proper balance between recorded music and live music. It is no use the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough pleading that a needle time deal can be done, a deal concerned solely about the amount of recorded music which local radio stations can use. There is another dimension to any such lead. Before any such agreement can be reached, hon. Members must realise that there will have to be a guarantee and an agreement about the amount of live employment which will be offered to the music profession in commercial local radio. That is what any negotiators must face if they are looking for a needle time agreement.

4.30 p.m.

I do not expect the Minister to attempt to take over the negotiating functions of the Independent Broadcasting Authority, on the one hand, and the copyright organisations, on the other. If Governments accept that they have responsibility towards, in this case, the music profession, they must issue general guidelines and general policies on which any meaningful negotiations can be based.

The Minister could help if he would give us such broad indications as I have asked for over a number of months. It is not a question of leaving it to the broadcasting organisations. The Government have a responsibility here.

I should like to see the Amendment written into the legislation. My hon. and learned Friend has pointed out the difficulties of drafting an adequate Amendment for the purposes we seek to achieve and has said that he puts forward the Amendment in a modest and even in a probing manner. The intention of the Amendment is to ensure that there is a proper degree of public knowledge and control over content and quality. I have


raised one aspect of the problems dealing with both content and quality. I hope that, as the Minister is now many months away from the Second Reading of the Bill, and as there must obviously have been discussions between his Ministry and the Independent Broadcasting Authority, he will be able to give us a little more information on general Government policy on the issue I have raised than he has been able to do previously.

Mr. Whitehead: I support the Amendment. Some of the things we have heard today have been almost a wilful misunderstanding of what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) proposed. Essentially, what my learned Friend said is that, partly because of the nature of sound broadcasting and of the companies to be set up, be they metropolitan or regional—they certainly will not be local—there is a particular need for this kind of general injunction.
All that it is sought to write into the Bill by the Amendment is the framework for such injunctions. We are not attempting by the Amendment to put into the Bill the precise form of words or the precise criteria or the precise measurements for either the quantity or the quality of the programmes which are desired or, indeed, for the amount of advertising which shall be permitted. We are saying that, because of the nature of sound broadcasting and of some of the potential contractors, exhibited, as always, only too clearly by the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Proudfoot), there is a danger that, without this kind of general guideline by the I.B.A., standards will slip and within the period of the rolling contracts standards will fall away.
The Authority—in its present form, the I.T.A.—already issues general guidelines on a wide variety of subjects. It issues guidelines and it directs its own specialist committee in the matter of the control of advertising. I think that the Authority does that well. On the whole, its control of advertising seems to me to be satisfactory. Whether it places the advertising in a satisfactory manner, and whether it will entirely be able to place advertising in the new situation of unlimited hours, is another question. However, in terms of the tone of the advertisements, the guidelines laid

down from time to time have been satisfactory.

Mr. Gorst: When inviting applications, will not the Authority be laying down certain criteria, and will not the remainder of the criteria be self-imposed by the applicant, because in his application he will say what he intends to do and that will be the mandate which will be guiding him throughout the time he has his contract? Further, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the Bill provides for contracts to be published and to be available, so that everybody will know what the self-imposed ordinances on the contractors are.

Mr. Whitehead: Here we come back to the central problem posed by the Bill and the reservations that many of us have about the criteria which can effectively be imposed upon operators. Not all contractors will be guided by their mandate or mandated by their guides. Not all of the contractors will necessarily adhere to the very high hopes that the hon. Gentleman initially put in the kind of proposals he would have liked to see instituted for commercial broadcasting. Perhaps he still believes that for the new regional companies similar standards can be adhered to.
What I was saying—I will expound the point only very briefly—was that I think that one of the better innovations of the I.T.A. over the years, which the probing Amendment strongly suggests that those responsible within the I.B.A. should follow, was in the matter of general guidelines.
I take a second example in the matter of violence—the supposed code of violence. There has been great concern, as the hon. Gentleman knows as well as anyone, about the degree of violence in broadcasting—implicit violence, perhaps or violence reflected back within television programmes. The Authority has issued, in response to general criticisms expressed from time to time at Question time in Parliament, and so on, a guideline of a very satisfactory nature compared with the situation which existed before regarding the standards which the company should observe.
As I understand the Amendment, all that we are saying is that from time to time, in this matter also, similar guidelines should be issued by the Authority


for the general guidance of programme contractors and that these should relate to programme content and quality, to advertising duration, and to the extent to which minority interest programmes should be catered for.
It is precisely because of the speeches that we have heard from the hon. Members for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) and for Brighouse and Spenborough that we believe that this is necessary, because there is a deep-seated visceral feeling amongst some of the supporters of the Bill that they should not be tampered with, that the voice of the advertising manager must come first, that the voice of those who have to sell advertising time must be the main criteria, and that therefore, because the main purpose of these companies will be to maximise their revenues, other considerations should be laid to one side.
It is for that reason only that we say, as we have said throughout on the Bill, that there must be a more stringent application of the general guidance of the Authority in this matter, even more stringent than that which applies in the case of television. With television there are only 15 contractors. Those contractors must prepare their schedules well in advance, so there is ample opportunity for the I.T.A. to effect a general scrutiny of what is proposed and to assess, over that time, the proposed programme, for a whole quarter.
That will not be the case with these 60 companies, when we get them. It will not be the case with the first five or 10 companies, even. This is the situation which some hon. Members who are enthusiasts for commercial radio have often described. This is the situation in which there is a much more constant flow of new programming, new ideas, and so on—things are being put in; things are being taken out; there is a great immediacy; there is a great reflex response to the needs of the audience, and so on. Precisely for this reason it will be much harder to assess and to direct—I think that there should be direction; I am a dirigiste in this matter—the way in which the companies put their programmes and their programmes schedules together.
I am not at all satisfied that in the Act as amended by the Bill we shall have

that. I am certainly not satisfied by everything we heard from the right hon. Gentleman in Committee, as to why the Minister cannot lay down stringent criteria for timing of advertising and where the advertising slot should come, that the matter of advertising is adequately covered. We can only say that the Authority should be strongly advised by the House that its general guidance in these matters should be offered periodically. I cannot see how any Conservative hon. Members can oppose that, and I hope that the Minister will be at least broadly sympathetic.

Mr. John Golding: I stress the importance of control over advertising. Those of us who have interested ourselves in the quality of television have come increasingly to realise the importance of advertising in this connection. What is of reasonable quality without advertising can become of very low quality with natural and unnatural breaks for advertising. From the start we must be careful that the quality of commercial radio is not entirely destroyed by advertising policy. That quality will be destroyed if advertising continually breaks into the programmes. I wish to stress the importance of the I.B.A. exercising the fullest supervision over programme content from the start. It is very important whatever its policy on transmitters, which will be dealt with in the next Amendment, that we ensure the highest level of local broadcasting possible.
Many of us have opposed the Bill, and continue to oppose it, because we do not believe that commercial radio will equal the standards set by much of the B.B.C. local radio. We want to be certain that we do not get an inferior alternative to that which is offered now by the B.B.C. in several areas. It is very important that quality control is exercised from the beginning and that the situation does not develop in radio which has developed in television, where so much of the time of people who are concerned with television standards is taken up with criticism of the I.T.A. because it fails to act as a truly regulatory body.

The Minister for Industrial Development (Mr. Christopher Chataway): I was relieved to hear the hon. and learned


Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) say that his intention in moving the Amendment was to probe, because I do not think it is an Amendment which could be happily incorporated into the Bill. The debate he has initiated has enabled hon. Members on both sides who have ridden hobby-horses in the Standing Committee to give them a quick gallop round the Chamber. I am sure we have all enjoyed hearing once again views from a number of hon. Members on how commercial radio should be run.
Some of the views expressed appeared to me, as they might have to a number of hon. Members who have heard them before, to be wildly unrealistic. My hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Proudfoot) talks about 2,000radio stations. I know of no technical advice anywhere which would suggest that this country could have 2,000 radio stations, unless they had a transmitting radius of not more than a quarter of a mile each.
Equally, when I listen to hon. Members opposite shuddering with horror at the idea that commercial radio might actually result in disc jockeys and records, I wonder whether they have listened to radio since the 1930s. I imagine the last programme they heard was Henry Hall's Guest Night in the 1930s. What kind of radio broadcasts are they thinking about? Do they ever listen to radio now? Are they aware that Radio I has on average 45 per cent. of radio listeners? Radio 1, introduced, so we are told by the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) at his instigation, is pop and prattle virtually all day. Some of it may be absolutely splendid. But when the hon. and learned Gentleman talks about the possibility of pop on commercial radio he is overcome with anguish. It seems to be the fear on the Opposition benches that commercial radio will produce another Radio 1 or a series of Radio Is and that it would be all pop.

4.45 p.m.

In a moment or two I would like to turn to discussion about the kind of programmes that local commercial radio would be likely to produce. First, I shall deal with the Amendment, which contains four proposals. Three of them are undesirable or impossible of definition and the fourth is unnecessary. The

first is the proposal that the Minister and the Authority are to draw up and publish statements setting out criteria. That presupposes that the Authority will not be solely responsible for making judgments about programme content, but that the Minister will have to be consulted. I think that would be a thoroughly undesirable departure from the concept of non-intervention which was proposed by the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins). If hon. Members do not want the Minister to control the programme content they cannot have that proposal.

It would appear from the Amendment that the second proposal is that before the Minister and the Authority make up their minds they are to have consultation with all interested parties. That phrase seems incapable of definition. Every member of the public who listens to radio would, in a sense, be an interested party, and if the statement means less than that and means consultation with trade unions or business interests, the consultation would be unbalanced and probably undesirable.

The third proposal is not only that the Authority should be required to consult with the Minister about the criteria but apparently that the Minister is to have joint responsibility in the legal sense. The proposal requires that "they"—the Minister and the Authority—are to adopt the criteria. I need not elaborate the disadvantages of that. I believe the majority of hon. Members on both sides do not want to see Government control of the content of programmes which that proposal would require.

The fourth proposal is unnecessary because Section 22(4) of the Television Act, 1964, already requires that the Authority's annual report which is presented to Parliament by the Minister shall:
…include such information relating to the plans, and past and present activities, of the Authority…as the Postmaster General may from time to time direct.
So the Minister can already direct the Authority to publish whatever information he thinks fit about the Authority's criteria for the various matters mentioned in the Amendment.

I hope that it will be accepted on both sides of the House that this is not an Amendment which should be incorporated into the Bill. I believe that was


accepted by the hon. and learned Gentleman and that he was anxious to provide an opportunity for hon. Members to express views, of which I am sure the Authority will take note.

Once again the hon. and learned Gentleman asked me a number of detailed questions about what would be provided by way of programmes in the new service. There he was reverting to a theme which has become familiar from him. When the Bill was published he said "It does not tell us how many minutes of advertising there are to be, how many plays, how much sweet music, how much pop music, whether we shall have Aspro advertisements." A Bill cannot lay down those things. It would be totally inappropriate if we attempted in legislation to provide a straitjacket of that kind. It is right that we should lay down criteria, that Parliament should in general terms indicate to the statutory authority what it expects of it, and there are pages and pages of the 1964 Act and now of the Bill which do just that. We shall lay a large number of duties for impartiality and all the rest upon the Authority.

What would be totally inappropriate would be for us to say that there should be X minutes of advertising time, Y minutes of religious broadcasting and not less than Z number of plays per week. That would obviously be impossible. Equally, it would be wrong for me to try to bind the Authority in advance.

But the Authority has been giving considerable thought already to what it will expect from the companies, and I have had discussions with it. We must recognise, as my hon. Friends the Members for Brighouse and Spenborough and Totnes (Mr. Mawby) said, that in most areas, at least at the outset, there will be one commercial radio station against a large number of B.B.C. services, so that that station will have to be popular. It will have to go for the large audiences.

There is a kind of condescension that argues that because something is popular it is necessarily bad, that because millions of people read the Daily Mirror it must be a dreadful paper. I do not subscribe to that view. A service can be both popular and good. Clearly, the commercial radio stations will for most

of the time have to appeal to large numbers. It was in recognition of that that we concluded that it was right that the B.B.C. local radio stations should continue, because they can appeal to quite small minorities. They can put on programmes for the blind, information for people who are unemployed, and many other programmes like that, directed to quite small minorities. That is something which commercial stations will not be able to do.

What will be the main ingredients of the programmes? I agree with my hon. Friends that news, both local and national, is bound to be a major ingredient. When we examine the successful commercial stations in North America we find that that is the case. How much news? That will vary enormously according to what is happening on the day.

There will be information about the locality, the kind of information people want about traffic, what is happening in the High Street, and all the rest. That, too, must be a major ingredient for any successful station.

Will the commercial station be local or regional? Again we return to a rather arid argument we have had over a number of weeks, which seems to rest upon the way in which we define "local". The hon. and learned Gentleman is convinced that a station serving London is regional. All right. Is a station serving Ipswich or Plymouth regional? I assume that it is local. I do not know why the hon. Gentleman, with an obtuseness totally uncharacteristic of him, refuses to accept that in introducing a large number of stations of this kind we are bound to have great variations in their size. Some will cater for very large towns and cities. If the hon. and learned Gentleman wants to call them regional, that is fine. But some will cater for quite small towns and cities. If we wanted to have only very small stations, the only way would be not to allow a station to cater for the whole of London but to insist that London be split up into 20 or 30 different parts. There is no attraction in that, and no precedent anywhere else in the world.

The stations, whether catering for large or small areas, will inevitably spend a good deal of their time on community matters and community information. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member


for Brighouse and Spenborough that there will also be participation programmes. They are one thing that community radio can do that national radio has more difficulty in doing. It is true that the B.B.C. now has a very successful phone-in national programme, but there is much more opportunity for doing it on a community basis. In North America there are successful stations which have nothing else but phone-in programmes and participation programmes of that kind.

Music—background music, popular music, sweet music—is bound to be a major ingredient. I said that 45 per cent. listen to Radio 1 at present and 35 percent. listen to Radio 2. So about 80 per cent. are listening to programmes principally concerned with pop or sweet music. Naturally, in commercial radio they are bound to be large-ish ingredients.

Mr. O'Malley: The right hon. Gentleman said there would need to be a large amount of popular and light music on commercial radio, similar to Radio I. But in a Press statement issued by his Department on 27th April last year, containing an extract from a speech he made, he was reported as saying:
The B.B.C. is able to average out its needle-time allowance over several channels in order to produce more or less non-stop pop on Radio 1 in a way which will almost certainly be denied to the commercial network.
I assume that the right hon. Gentleman still accepts the view he expressed then.

Mr. Chataway: That was a piece of intelligent guesswork. I certainly expect that to be the case. As the hon. Gentleman will know better than anyone else, there are important negotiations to be undertaken with the copyright organisations, in which the Musicians Union will play a part, to determine the amount of needle time. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is reasonable for musicians to expect that commercial radio will provide more employment, and I have no doubt that in those negotiations that will be one of their principal concerns. If I were negotiating for the Musicians Union I would certainly make sure I was satisfied that the new system would provide that kind of employment, and I would use my bargaining power to that end.

Mr. O'Malley: If the right hon. Gentleman were negotiating not on behalf of the union but on behalf of the Independent Broadcasting Authority, would he think, as a representative of the Authority, that there was an obligation, a public responsibility on it to respond to the claims that the musical profession should obtain some employment out of commercial radio?

Mr. Chataway: I go further than that. I know that the Authority takes that view. It expects that commercial radio will provide those employment opportunities, and it is anxious that it should.
That is some of the ground that will be covered by commercial radio. I do not believe that it would be reasonable to expect on one channel formal education programmes such as school programmes. That it should have a more general educational intention, I entirely agree, and it is of importance that many of the programmes should be informative and of educational value.
I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will feel that the debate which he has initiated has been useful. Although some of us who have been in Committee may feel we have heard one or two of the arguments before, this has been an opportunity for hon. Members to put clearly to the Authority some of their ideas about the kind of programmes they wish the new service to provide.

5.00 p.m.

Mr. Richard: With permission, I will briefly comment on the right hon. Gentleman's reply. He said that we have had this debate before. We have indeed. We have often asked the same questions as we put to him today—in fact, ever since the White Paper was published in March, 1971. We had a debate in May, 1971. We then asked what sort of commercial radio network we were to get. We asked again on Second Reading what sort of programmes the great British public were to get. We asked again in Committee, and now we have asked again on Report.
We are still, however, in as great a state of ignorance at the end of this long period of questioning as we were at the beginning I am asked to make a choice. If the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Proudfoot) is right in his assessment of how the system


is to work, that is one type of radio; if the right hon. Gentleman is right, that is another type. It may be that the truth lies half way—perhaps with the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst)—between the hon. Member for Brig-house and Spenborough and the Minister. But I do not know, nor do the general public, how the system will operate. The hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough agrees with me. He does not know what the Authority has in mind. If he did, he might be even more forthright than his usual forthrightness leads him to be.
I regret that the Minister cannot give some idea of how many minutes of advertising time per hour will be allowed under the Bill. When Sir David Gammans was piloting the Television Act, 1954, through the House, he said "We cannot be specific; there must be room for experimentation." In fact, he

said all the things that the right hon. Gentleman has said today. Finally, however, he said "What we would envisage is five or six minutes of advertising time per hour."

I cannot see why the Government cannot tell us in broad terms what they envisage for sound radio and the way they see the system operating in practice. They have not told us, despite being questioned for the umpteenth time. We still have a bare legislative skeleton on which for 14 months we have tried to put some flesh, and we have failed to do so yet again. Despite what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I would rather have Amendment No. 71 in the Bill than nothing at all.

Question put, That the Amendment be made: —

The House divided: Ayes 171, Noes 191.

Division No. 117.]
AYES
[5.5 p.m.


Albu, Austen
Foley, Maurice
McNamara, J. Kevin


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Foot, Michael
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Allen, Scholefield
Ford, Ben
Marks, Kenneth


Atkinson, Norman
Freeson, Reginald
Marsden, F.


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Gilbert, Dr. John
Marshall, Dr. Edmund


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Golding, John
Mayhew, Christopher


Bidwell, Sydney
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Meacher, Michael


Bishop, E. S.
Gourlay, Harry
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mendelson, John


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Mikardo,Ian


Booth, Albert
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Millan, Bruce


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Milne, Edward


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Hamling, William
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Moyle, Roland


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hattersley, Roy
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Murray, Ronald King


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Heffer, Eric S.
O'Halloran, Michael


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Horam, John
O'Malley, Brian


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Oram, Bert


Concannon, J. D.
Hunter, Adam
Orbach, Maurice


Conlan, Bernard
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Oswald, Thomas


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Padley, Walter


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Crawshaw, Richard
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pendry, Tom


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn (W.Ham,S)
Pentland, Norman


Dalyell, Tam
Kaufman, Gerald
Perry, Ernest G.


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Kerr, Russell
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Lambie, David
Prescott, John


Deakins, Eric
Lamond, James
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Latham, Arthur
Price, William (Rugby)


Dempsey, James
Lawson, George
Probert, Arthur


Doig, Peter
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Dormand, J. D.
Lipton, Marcus
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Lomas, Kenneth
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Loughlin, Charles
Richard, Ivor


Dunn, James A.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Eadie, Alex
McElhone, Frank
Roper, John


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McGuire, Michael
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


English, Michael
Mackenzie, Gregor
Sandelson, Neville


Ewing, Harry
Mackie, John
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Maclennan, Robert
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Fletcher. Ted (Darlington)
McMillan. Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Sillars, James


Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham,Ladywood)
Mackintosh, John P.
Skinner, Dennis


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)






Small, William
Tinn, James
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Tomney, Frank
Whitehead, Phillip


Spearing Nigel
Torney, Tom
Whitlock, William


Spriggs, Leslie
Tuck, Raphael
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Stallard, A. W.
Urwin, T. W.
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Steel, David
Wainwright, Edwin
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Woof, Robert


Strang, Gavin
Wallace, George



Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Watkins, David
TELLERS FOR THE AYES: 


Taverne, Dick
Weitzman, David
Mr. Ernest Armstrong and


Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)
Wellbeloved, James
Mr. Joseph Harper.


NOES


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Pink, R. Bonner


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Haselhurst, Alan
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Hayhoe, Barney
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Astor, John
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Atkins, Humphrey
Hicks, Robert
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Bell, Ronald
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Holland, Philip
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Hornby, Richard
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Biffen, John
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Redmond, Robert


Biggs-Davison, John
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Boscawen, Robert
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Ridsdale, Julian


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hunt, John
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Bowden, Andrew
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Bray, Ronald
James, David
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Jessel, Toby
Rost, Peter


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Jopling, Michael
Russell, Sir Ronald


Bryan, Paul
Kaberry, Sir Donald
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N &amp; M)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Scott, Nicholas


Burden, F. A.
Kershaw, Anthony
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Carlisle, Mark
Kimball, Marcus
Skeet, T. H. H.


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Soref, Harold


Channon, Paul
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Speed, Keith


Chapman, Sydney
Kinsey, J. R.
Spence, John


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Kitson, Timothy
Sproat, Iain


Cockeram, Eric
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Stanbrook, Ivor


Cooke, Robert
Knox, David
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Cormack, Patrick
Lane, David
Stokes, John


Costain, A. P.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Critchley, Julian
Le Marchant, Spencer
Sutcliffe, John


Crouch, David
Longden, Sir Gilbert
Tapsell, Peter


Dean, Paul
Luce, R. N.
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Dixon, Piers
MacArthur, Ian
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
McCrindle, R. A.
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Dykes, Hugh
McLaren, Martin
Tebbit, Norman


Eden, Sir John
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Temple, John M.


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Emery, Peter
Madel, David
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Farr, John
Marten, Neil
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Mather, Carol
Tilney, John


Fidler, Michael
Maude, Angus
Tugendhat, Christopher


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Mawby, Ray
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Fortescue, Tim
Moate, Roger
Ward, Dame Irene


Fowler, Norman
Money, Ernle
Warren, Kenneth


Fox, Marcus
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Weatherill, Bernard


Fry, Peter
Monro, Hector
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Gardner, Edward
Montgomery, Fergus
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Gibson-Watt, David
More, Jasper
Wilkinson, John


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Winterton, Nicholas


Goodhart, Philip
Mudd, David
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Goodhew, Victor
Murton, Oscar
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Gorst, John
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Woodnutt, Mark


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Neave, Airey
Worsley, Marcus


Gray, Hamish
Normanton, Tom
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Green, Alan
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Younger, Hn. George


Grylls, Michael
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)



Gummer, J. Selwyn
Page, Graham (Crosby)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gurden, Harold
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Mr. Walter Clegg and


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Percival, Ian
Mr. Paul Hawkins.


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Pike, Miss Mervyn



Hannam, John (Exeter)

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Michael English: I beg to move Amendment No. 66, in page 2, line 9, after "have", insert:
transmitters not exceeding in power 17 kilowatts in London or six kilowatts elsewhere and".
It might assist the House if I were to move the Amendment only very briefly because its object is to probe the Minister's mind. I believe that on Report stage a Member who moves an Amendment has a right of reply to the debate on the Amendment, and I would prefer to say more then, if need be.
It is not my object by the Amendment to go into the regional or semi-regional or local argument. The figures which I am proposing are slightly higher than those of the present local v.h.f. radio stations in all cases, and they include, as the Minister will be aware, stations which cover substantial areas, because half a kilowatt will cover the whole of a city the size of Nottingham, and does, and less than one kilowatt is local.
What I am worried about, what, I hope, the Minister can give me an assurance upon, are rumours of applications for stations of 50, 100, and 150 kilowatts, and there is even one rumour, which I hope is untrue, of an application for a station of 250 kilowatts. That would not be even a national station; it would cover the whole of Western Europe.
I hope that now or at another appropriate stage the Minister will have an Amendment, not necessarily in exactly the terms of this one, which would precisely limit local radio stations to those which would be at most regional, to those having a reasonable radius, and not have stations which would add to the already considerable air chaos which large stations can produce all over Europe.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Gorst: I do not want to detain the House for any length of time but I would like to take the opportunity, when we are discussing transmitting power, which, of course, involves frequencies and wavelengths, to make one or two points very quickly.
As long ago as 16th December, in the Standing Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price), the Minister who was assisting my right hon. Friend, pointed out that a plan

was being prepared at that time and that when and if it were completed information about it would be made available. That is now many months ago, and we still have no frequency plans published to enable us to assess the nature of the system which is to be set up.
Surely the public are entitled to know what sort of a brief has been given to the engineers who are to decide frequency powers and the frequencies themselves. I know from my experience throughout the 'sixties, when I was responsible for preparing at least two frequency plans for use on medium waves, that the answer one gets out of engineers depends on the brief which one gives to them. We do not know what sort of brief has been given to these engineers.
This is a matter of considerable importance to the system, because the whole starting point, in anything to do with broadcasting, is the engineering feasibility study of what is technically possible; after that, of course, follow the questions whether it is economically viable and whether it is politically expedient; and by politically expedient I mean such questions as the rôle of the B.B.C., the Press interests and how they can be bought off, and, of course, what sort of sop is to be given to the Musicians Union.
Here we have taken matters in exactly the reverse order. We have taken matters of political expediency, then the question of economic viability, and finally the technical matter, so one is led to suppose, because as late as 16th December no frequency plan had been published, and we still do not know what the frequency situation is for these 60 stations.
I ask my right hon. Friend to give us some undertaking about when these facts will be made available to us so that we can scrutinise them very carefully before the Bill is given the Royal Assent.

Mr. Chataway: I do not think my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) is right in his description of the order in which these matters have been taken. If he looks at the annex to the White Paper he will see the nature of the brief which was given to the engineers. I think it will be clear to him


from the White Paper that the engineers, of the B.B.C. and the I.T.A., have been told what we want—v.h.f. provision for B.B.C. local radio and as much m.f. back up for B.B.C. local radio as we can find, and similarly, for up to 60 commercial stations we want v.h.f. and m.f. provision. It is a fairly complicated exercise. There is also a good deal of hard bargaining in the matter, as I am sure the House will recognise. Over these past weeks, under the chairmanship of my Ministry, B.B.C. and I.T.A. engineers have been meeting on this, and they have had outside specialist help as well. They have made substantial progress. I cannot give my hon. Friend a date, but I know that my right hon. Friend will want to publish the detailed frequency plan, with powers, as soon as he can. It may be possible to publish one part before another.
We have to decide on the allocation of the spare British frequencies, which are the frequencies which are released by the ending of regional variations on Radio 4. One then has to decide provisionally where the stations may go and to work out the powers that will be necessary for B.B.C. and I.T.A. to broadcast on m.f. and v.h.f. That is the process that is under way, and the engineers are somewhere near the end of their work.

Mr. Gorst: I fully appreciate that certain information was given in the White Paper, although I suspect that modifications to that now exist of which we are not aware. The point I am making and wish to emphasise is that, on the one hand, engineers can decide to use the transmitter power at very low power and consequently use the same frequency three and perhaps four and five times over within the United Kingdom, or they can use much higher powers, in which case they can use them only once or twice. The decision which has to be made is whether to have a small number of powerful stations or a larger number of lower powered stations, and we do not know which decision has been made on that.

Mr. Chataway: With respect, I think my hon. Friend does know. He knows that we are trying to get room for both v.h.f. and m.f. for all the B.B.C. stations and for up to 60 I.B.A. stations. He knows that these are to be local stations in the sense of serving the communities.

He knows that the largest will be the two Greater London stations. We are not going for larger powers than are necessary to provide as good a night and day coverage as we can on both m.f. and v.h.f. for these stations.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) is anxious that permission should not be given for powers of transmission which will either limit the number of stations there can be or cause interference, and I hope that I can give him some reassurance. He would do well to bear in mind that power is vested completely in my right hon. Friend's Ministry. Under the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1949, my righthon. Friend has complete control. He has control over transmitting powers, characteristics of aerials and the location of stations. There will be no question of a commercial company putting in an application to transmit at 250 kilowatts and being able to do so off its own bat.
The jigsaw is put together by the Ministry, and it is important that it should be. If we are to get the maximum use of the scarce resources of the frequency spectrum, it is important that it should be centrally and skilfully planned. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Ministry and my right hon. Friend have no intention of allowing powers of transmission which would cause interference or any of the harmful effects that he fears.

Mr. English: Has the Ministry in mind a top limit for the power of a station? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would rather say than have a figure in the Bill.

Mr. Chataway: I do not want to tie my right hon. Friend to a figure at the moment because a great deal of discussion is going on, particularly about medium frequency. As the hon. Gentleman will probably know, somewhat higher powers are required for medium frequency than for v.h.f. When he took the 17 kilowatts, he was looking at v.h.f. because B.B.C. local radio broadcasts only on v.h.f. at the moment. In London certainly powers substantially higher than that will be required, but 250 kilowatts is certainly on top of anything that is being thought about
A number of factors enter into this, not only transmitting power but type of aerial. With a directional aerial one


can use substantially higher power without causing interference, and the kind of terrain that has to be covered matters a good deal. To reach high buildings and car radio listeners it may be necessary to transmit at higher powers to get good reception. These are all factors that have to be taken into account.
I think the hon. Gentleman agrees that it would not be reasonable to write a power into the Bill. It just is not necessary, because my right hon. Friend has total control over the matter and he licenses the two broadcasting authorities, the B.B.C. and the I.B.A. He will allow them to transmit only at the powers which he believes are consistent with the requirements of other users.

Mr. Proudfoot: My right hon. Friend should make it crystal clear that when he speaks about the allocation of wavelength and power he means that each of the 60 stations will, in effect, have two transmitters, one v.h.f. and one medium wave. When he poked fun at my 2,000 radio stations with a range of a quarter of a mile he meant on medium wave and v.h.f. I meant commercial opportunity for v.h.f. stations only, because within a short time everybody in the country will own a v.h.f. set. Therefore, the first 60 stations are merely the jigsaw of medium wave, and after the first 60 perhaps there will be a greater opportunity for my 2,000 stations on v.h.f. only.

Mr. Chataway: Even if we doubled my 60 stations we should not be very near my hon. Friend's 2,000. I entirely agree that the time will come when there are only v.h.f. sets, when it will be unreasonable to continue to duplicate in this way, but at the moment both the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. feel that it is unsatisfactory simply to have a programme going out on v.h.f. because there will be only quite a small minority of the population listening to v.h.f. at any one time.

Mr. Richard: The Minister will know that the extension of the B.B.C. local radio stations on to the medium waveband has been held up by the preparation of the general frequency plan. Even if he is not in a position to tell us a great deal about the overall position, if the frequency plan is likely to be seriously delayed, will he assure us that the B.B.C

will nevertheless be permitted to expand its local radio stations on to medium wave, if necessary before the whole country has been considered for the v.h.f. band?

Mr. Chataway: It will not be possible for the B.B.C. to start broadcasting on medium wave before the plan has been worked out. I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that there is no reason to expect serious delay. The work has been going forward satisfactorily, and I expect that it will be concluded fairly soon. Then there is the re-engineering to be done by the broadcasting authorities before they can transmit. During the time I have been responsible I have always wanted to ensure that the B.B.C. should use medium frequency as soon as possible.

Mr. Richard: Will it be made public?

Mr. Chataway: Certainly it will be made public.

Mr. Gorst: My right hon. Friend has mentioned car radios. Will he assure the House that the B.B.C. is being pressed to change its aerial arrays in such a way that v.h.f. car radios will be able to receive v.h.f. radio programmes, which is not so at the moment because of the nature of the B.B.C. aerial arrays?

Mr. Chataway: I must not be lured too far into waters in which I am not entirely sure I am capable of swimming. These are technical matters, and it would be better for my hon. Friend to raise them either with the B.B.C. or at some later stage with my right hon. Friend.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. English: I thank the Minister for his reply and I am glad to see his successor the right hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) on the Treasury Front Bench since he will have heard this discussion. I am not personally against local commercial radio, provided that it is competitive with a public service system of local radio and provided that it exists as an extra rather than as a complete alternative.
I appreciate that in the present negotiations, in the great argument over the frequency plan for medium wave and v.h.f. the Minister wishes to retain a degree of flexibility. I hope he will


remember that the prime reason for higher power on medium wave is that it is much more possible than on v.h.f. for a freak of nature to bring in another local station from the far side of Europe and thus for it to interfere with the local programme. The higher power transmission is required on medium wave to protect the listeners from interference. If we are to have high power on medium wave, this will determine the whole pattern of local radio and will exclude the possibility of local radio being really local. We might end up with a four-channel national network of commercial radio, and I am sure that nobody would wish to see that.
It is essential to keep down the limit as far as possible. I was overjoyed when the B.B.C. put out on v.h.f. a ½ kW station because of the necessity for additional channels of local communication. For example, I feel that there should be better communication between the local councils and their electors and I am all in favour of additional local methods of communication.
Now that we have six-kilowatt stations outside London we have gone a little beyond the concept of local radio—almost to a form of semi-regional radio. I am a little disappointed about that. There could be many regional stations under the Bill's provisions, but if we go in for that sort of concept we shall not have local radio in the real sense of the word but semi-regional or fully regional stations. If we take the power any higher we shall have national or international stations which will automatically keep down the total number of possible local stations. I believe that such a situation would be disastrous. 
I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman's soft answer, but I hope that he appreciates that hon. Members on all sides of the House would prefer him to use his powers to lean in the direction of having more stations in the lower power range rather than fewer stations at very high power. I believe that I have achieved my object. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I beg to move Amendment No. 10, in line 36, at end insert: —

(5) At the end of section 3(l)(c) of the principal Act there shall be added the words 'and, in respect of sound broadcasting programmes shall be of United Kingdom origin and of United Kingdom performance'.
This is an important Amendment since the Television Act, 1964, provided that the Authority was to satisfy itself
that proper proportions of the recorded and other matter included in the programmes are of British origin and of British performance…
That provision was included by a Conservative Government, at the request of the people who work in the medium who saw developments in television as likely to take away much of the work in the theatres. They wanted to see a proper proportion of programmes allocated to British performers and reflecting the culture of the British people.
These arguments were accepted by the then Conservative Government, not merely in terms of leaving the matter to the Authority, but in terms of giving the Authority a clear directive in the Act that it was to seek a "proper proportion"—a proportion which has turned out to be 85 per cent.
Hon. Members will be surprised to learn that the proportion is as high as that and it is true that a great deal of American material—15 per cent.—is transmitted at peak times. However, the British television service is primarily a British service and is recognised as such. It is television which is produced in this country and we have reason to be proud of this fact. I appreciate that we are occasionally disposed to knock British television and British radio, but one has only to visit other countries to realise what a relatively good service we have. The people of this country use their absolute right to criticise the service, but it would appear that they are generally satisfied with it since most of them stay home night after night to watch television. If they did not like it, they would not do so.
The provision to which I have drawn attention in the 1964 Act has been responsible for the excellence of British television, and but for that provision a great deal more American material would have been seen on our screens. Therefore, the essentially British character of our television would just not have happened.
I recall the situation in the cinema industry in the early years when, because of the lack of any protective quota, the British cinema became an offshoot of Hollywood—a situation from which it has never recovered. Even since a quota was introduced we have been left with a situation of only 30 per cent. of British product.
Sir Winston Churchill, once said that we are more the creatures of our institutions than we know, and I add that how an institution begins life frequently determines its character.
Since the cinema began without any protection in the early days more and more American films were shown on British screens. The British film industry has laboured ever since under great difficulties and has never been able to command its home ground. Therefore, we stopped that process ever occurring in television by ensuring a proper proportion of British material. This was determined by the Authority in discussion with the people working in the industry and was set at the reasonable figure of about 85 per cent., which has been the figure ever since.
I moved a similar Amendment in Committee and withdrew it after an interesting debate. On that occasion in Committee I said:
…in view of what the Minister has said, and having regard to his invitation to argue our case behind the scenes between now and Report, and having regard to the right to suggest Amendments on Report, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 18th January, 1972; c. 678.]
The Amendment seeks to substitute the words "United Kingdom" for "British". At first glance, that seems to be rather esoteric, and perhaps the object of the exercise is not easily recognisable. But whereas the threat to television in the early days was from America, the threat to commercial radio will be from Canada and Australia, where there are banked up vast quantities of programmes, which have already recovered their costs in their countries of origin, waiting for the advent of British commercial radio. Unless a provision on the lines that I suggest is written into the Bill, programmes of that type may have the effect of making British commercial radio essentially a foreign product rather than a home-produced one.
In Committee, the Minister agreed that the effect of substituting "United Kingdom" for "British" would be that the restriction would operate against all forms of programme other than those actually made in the United Kingdom. That is the object of the exercise and the effect of the change. In other words, instead of being open to Commonwealth products it will be restricted to products made in this country.
The Minister said, without giving any undertaking, that he would look further into the matter. He added that any material that my Friends and I produced would be considered.
As long ago as 15th November of last year, the Radio and Television Safeguards Committee wrote to the right hon. Gentleman. That body represents everyone who works in radio and television, by which I mean not only performers but technicians, journalists and writers. It is a universal organisation, and everyone working in television is represented on that body. In its letter it said:
Our attention has been drawn to the threat to the quality of local radio programmes which arises from the vast quantity of old radio material which is available from Australia and Canada, and doubtless from elsewhere also. We enclose a copy of a letter which sets out the appalling conditions under which much of the old Australian material was produced; and we have also been informed that one of the largest London advertising agencies has been offered a large quantity of old Canadian programmes at £3 per half hour. The temptation to contractors to acquire and use such material may be considerable, especially at the beginning. In order that this impending flood of low quality material may be stemmed and limited, we would suggest that in the new Bill the words 'United Kingdom' should be substituted for the word 'British' in the appropriate subsection, which would then read: 'that proper proportions of the recorded and other matter included in the programmes are of United Kingdom origin and of United Kingdom performance.' 
The Amendment is almost identical to that suggested to the right hon. Gentleman by that body as early as November, 1971.
After our debate in Committee, I wrote to the Minister in that sense adding some of the points that I have made since. I do not think that it is necessary to read all of my letter. In the course of it I pointed out:
In short, the excellence of British television and its essentially British nature stems from the protection given to it in its early


Days.…In order to extend the same protection which a Conservative Government thought it right in television to radio, it is necessary to protect the service from an influx not only of American but of Canadian and Australian material, and for this reason we urge the change from 'British' to 'United Kingdom'.
Whether or not hon. Members agree with that proposal, I think that they will understand the objective behind it.

Mr. Proudfoot: The hon. Gentleman says that there are floods of Australian and Canadian programmes ready to come in at £3 a half hour. If that is the case, why has not the B.B.C. already bought them? The B.B.C. and independent television buy American material for television. I do not believe that these programmes exist. If they do, they cannot be much good.

Mr. Jenkins: The B.B.C. and the independent television companies are subject to the restriction to which I have referred. However, a contractor starting a radio station from scratch is likely in the early days to be under severe financial pressure. From sheer necessity he will be tempted to obtain his material as cheaply as possible. For his own benefit he should be prevented from starting off on the wrong foot by using the cheapest possible material, thereby setting a standard which would be one to live down to rather than one to live up to.
Following the Bill's Committee stage, I wrote to the right hon. Gentleman as I have said. In his reply, he expressed sympathy with my objective but added:
There are however two real difficulties. First, it has in the past been represented by U.S. and other interests in O.E.C.D. and GATT that the 'proper proportions' provision is not culturally motivated, but contains an important element of restraint in trade. We have managed to maintain our position so far, but an Amendment such as you suggest might make the provision appear to be less of a cultural one and more directed to protecting domestic industry and domestic workers against overseas competition.
That is a fair argument, and it has to be answered. It is impossible in this connection to make a distinction between the cultural and the industrial argument. Initially, in the case of the Television Act, it was the people engaged in the industry who suggested this proposal. But it is also true that the relatively high cultural quality of British television stems from the fact that it is a native product.

It gives work locally, it stems from what is done in this country, and it gives our people an opportunity to exercise their artistic and entertainment genius.

Mr. O'Malley: Amongst his other inquiries, has my hon. Friend inquired whether Section 3(l)(c) of the parent Act
…that proper proportions of the recorded and other matter included in the programmes are of British origin and of British performance…
would be regarded as being in restraint of trade if and when this country entered the E.E.C. and whether we should be allowed as a member of the Community to maintain even the Section in the parent Act which refers to "British origin"?

Mr. Jenkins: I should prefer not to pursue that argument. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend will wish to do so himself. I should prefer to continue with the reply which I received from the Minister and to deal with his second point. We in this country are unique in this respect, in that no other country in the world shares a language with highly industrialised countries which themselves produce a product which is saleable in this country.
The second point made by the right hon. Gentleman in his reply has little substance. He suggested that the term "British" or "United Kingdom performance" must refer to the nationality or citizenship of the performers. I think not. If it were argued that that would be the effect of the Amendment. I should be prepared to accept an alteration which would remove any doubt about the matter. The object of the exercise is to ensure that the product is made in this country. It is not intended to refer in any way to the racial origins of the performers. If there is any doubt about that, I am prepared to remit the Amendment for appropriate alteration by the Minister if he says that he accepts it in principle.
The right hon. Gentleman then said that he did not believe there was any real danger of opening the floodgates, to which I have referred, and that the I.T.A. has assured him that it intends to keep a firm eye on programme schedules and at least in the beginning so that the pattern is firmly set. If it was necessary to reinforce the determination of the I.T.A. when the Television Act was produced by giving it authority to do this, it


is equally necessary to reinforce the determination of the I.B.A. by legislative measures so that it has equal authority to act and cannot be said to be doing something arbitrarily without the backing of Parliament. I hope that that argument will persuade the Minister that it is appropriate to make this change, having regard to the nature of the alterations that we are seeking to make to the Bill, and that he will accept it in principle.
The right hon. Gentleman was kind enough to say in his letter that he hoped I would agree that it was all right to leave this to the Authority, but that if I felt strongly about it and wanted to return to the matter he would receive a deputation between Report stage and the Bill being considered by the other place. It would be very much better to deal with it in this House. If we could send the Bill to the other place with this provision in it, we should be saved from this influx.
This is no imagining. In the Daily Telegraph as long ago as August, 1971, Mr. S. R. I. Clarke, the Managing Director of the MacQuarie Broadcast Holdings, said that he had a large amount of material available for use in this country, and my informant says that even the large amount held by MacQuarie which is a big company, and ready for putting on British commercial radio is only about 20 per cent. of the potential flood. The material therefore is here, and what exercises me even more is the latest news, given in February of this year, that A.T.V. has found an Australian to head its British commercial radio interests.
The report says:
Now it's A.T.V. who have found an Australian to head their British commercial radio interests: once a 14-year-old office boy with MacQuarie broadcasting network, he's Robert Walker, hired to carry out A.T.V.'s plans to apply for a commercial radio licence (in its own right and with others) and 'be ready and equipped to supply full programme services to other operators'.
Not only that station, but other operators are to be supplied with ready made, £3 per half-hour products. The report concludes by saying:
Till his just-completed move here, he was assistant manager of the MacQuarie radio station 5DN in Adelaide. So, listeners, you have been warned.
That report appeared in The Times on 29th February, 1972.
This is not a figment of my imagination. The stuff is here, and unless the Amendment is accepted we shall run the grave risk of starting commercial radio on a bad basis. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will agree to look sympathetically at the Amendment. If he is able to say that he accepts the principle of it, I shall be happy with that. But if he says only that he is prepared to discuss the matter between now and the Bill being considered in another place that will not be enough, and I shall have to ask my hon. Friends to join me in dividing the House on this issue. It is my hope that the Minister will not make that necessary.

Mr. Chataway: I am afraid that I shall have to disappoint the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins). He has spelled out to the House some of the considerations that I have had to take into account. I, of course, do not want to see—and I should not think that anybody in the House would wish to see—commercial radio in this country dominated by products from abroad. The advice that I get from most quarters does not suggest that the threat is as great as the hon. Gentleman suggests. The advice that I get is that it is extremely unlikely that this material will be acceptable.
Clearly, the commercial radio stations will have to attract to themselves an audience. The advice that I get from potential operators and others to whom I have spoken does not suggest that a station would be likely to attract great popularity by carrying large quantities of the kind of material referred to by the hon. Gentleman, even if it were available.

Mr. O'Malley: Is the Minister's information similar to mine, namely, that salesmen from the Commonwealth, the United States and the Continent are approaching would-be commercial radio operators with a flood of cheap material of the kind mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins)? Does not the Minister think that there should be some protection against the influx of that kind of material into commercial radio?

Mr. Chataway: The hon. Gentleman probably knows more than I do about the efforts being made to sell material


of this kind in this country, but we ought not to get this out of proportion. I cannot get too anxious because an Australian has been appointed to a job in commercial radio in this country. I hope that there will not be too much of a Little Englander outlook on this matter. It will not do a lot of harm if we listen to some material that is produced in Canada or Australia.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: My hon. Friend the Member for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr) would never forgive me if I adopted an anti-Australian attitude. The objection is not to an Australian, but to the sale and establishment of the Australian product in this country. It is the flood, and not the nationality of the individual, that is the cause of the worry.

Mr. Chataway: The difficulties mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, and which Ispelled out in my letter, remain. We have real obligations in O.E.C.D. and G.A.T.T. There are real difficulties about making an alteration of this kind. The difficulties are added to because, by the nature of the Bill, we are trying to make this alteration in respect of radio and not of television. The provision "British" is accepted in the 1964 Act as applying to television, but by the Amendment a distinction would be made between United Kingdom for radio, and British for television, and that might add to some of the difficulties that I have described.
I accept that this difficulty could be got round, but so far an answer has not presented itself to me. My advice is that the term "United Kingdom" might be interpreted as meaning performance by British subjects who were citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies. Thus, it would appear to be a provision directed partly against immigrants. One is in a real difficulty in this matter.
There are disadvantages in attempting to alter the legislation in this delicate area in the way that the hon. Member has described. As I said, the I.T.A. has given assurances in this matter. There is its past practice in television to go by. It will be concerned to ensure that its service is a predominantly British service.
It would be reasonable for the House to leave the Bill as it is at this stage.

There would, of course, be an opportunity, before 1976, to consider the provision in relation to both television and radio, if that were thought necessary.

Mr. O'Malley: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, would he answer my point on the Common Market?

Mr. Chataway: I am sorry; I forgot. The hon. Member asked whether that provision in the 1964 Act was inconsistent with membership of the Common Market. No regulation of the Community is inconsistent with that provision. There would be no need on accession to make any change there.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: I cannot understand why the Minister is taking such objection to a very reasonable and helpful Amendment. Many of us do not want local commercial radio, but if we are to have it, it should get off on the right footing. The right footing is what we described in Committee—that it should have genuine local content, local in origin and in performance. That would mean having performers from the United Kingdom.
This Amendment was linked last night with that of the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Donald Stewart), to the effect that these performances should have even more local content—that they should be Scottish or Yorkshire, for instance.
When the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Proudfoot) has been talking about his notions of local commercial radio, he has not perhaps endeared himself to the House. Some hon. Members opposite may fear that commercial radio as described by him would not be to the cultural advantage of the British people. That may be why the hon. Members for Paddington, South (Mr. Scott) and Lewisham, West (Mr. Selwyn Gummer) have turned up to listen to the debate with such care. They would be terribly offended if they thought that we were to have format radio as advocated by their hon. Friend. The Minister appreciated this in correspondence with my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins).
I do not understand the Minister's comments about dumping. He said that his advice was that there was no evidence


to support the contentions of my hon. Friend about Australian salesmen peddling inferior stuff. Later, when questioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley), he made one accurate statement when he said that my hon. Friend knew much more about that than he did.

Mr. Chataway: Obviously, I was not sufficiently clear. What I hoped I had said was that my advice was that it was unlikely that any station would be able to attract a large audience predominantly using this material.

Mr. Mackenzie: I take the point. The Minister said that my hon. Friend knew

a good deal about it and that he was prepared to accept the evidence afforded him by my hon. Friend. We feel that there is a genuine fear, on the evidence presented by my hon. Friends.

I failed to understand the second point that the Minister made, about Clause 3(l)(c) and our obligations to the G.A.T.T. I see no great objection to the Amendment. I think that the Minister should reconsider his position and accept it.

Question put, That the Amendment be made: —

The House divided: Ayes 155, Noes 174.

Division No. 118.]
AYES
[6.5 p.m.


Albu, Austen
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Pannell Rt. Hn. Charles


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Pendry, Tom


Allen, Scholefield
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Pentland, Norman


Armstrong, Ernest
Hamling, William
Ferry, Ernest G.


Atkinson, Norman
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Prescott, John


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Heffer, Eric S.
Price, William (Rugby)


Bidwell, Sydney
Horam, John
Probert, Arthur


Bishop, E. S.
Hunter, Adam
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Booth, Albert
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Richard, Ivor


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Kaufman, Gerald
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Kerr, Russell
Roper, John


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Lambie, David
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Lamond, James
Sandelson, Neville


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Latham, Arthur
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Lawson, George
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward (N'tle-u-Tyne)


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Sillars, James


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Lipton, Marcus
Skinner, Dennis


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Loughlin, Charles
Small, William


Concannon, J. D.
McElhone, Frank
Spearing, Nigel


Conlan, Bernard
McGuire, Michael
Spriggs, Leslie


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Mackenzie, Gregor
Stallard, A. W.


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Mackie, John
Steel, David


Crawshaw, Richard
Mackintosh, John P.
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Cronin, John
Maclennan, Robert
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Strang, Gavin


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Tinn, James


Deakins, Eric
Marks, Kenneth
Tomney, Frank


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Maraden, F.
Torney, Tom


Dempsey, James
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Trew, Peter


Doig, Peter
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Wainwright, Edwin


Dormand, J. D.
Mayhew, Christopher
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Meacher, Michael
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Wallace, George


Dunn, James A.
Mendelson, John
Watkins, David


Eadie, Alex
Mikardo, Ian
Weitzman, David


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Millan, Bruce
Wellbeloved, James


Ewing, Harry
Milne, Edward
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Faulds, Andrew
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Whitehead, Phillip


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Whitlock, William


Fisher,Mrs. Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)
Moyle, Roland
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Foley, Maurice
Murray, Ronald King
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Foot, Michael
O'Halloran, Michael
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Gilbert, Dr. John
O'Malley, Brian
Woof, Robert


Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Oram, Bert



Gourlay, Harry
Orbach, Maurice
TELLERS FOR THE AYES: 


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Oswald, Thomas
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Padley, Walter
Mr. John Golding.




NOES


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Astor, John
Haselhurst, Alan
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Atkins, Humphrey
Hawkins, Paul
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Bell, Ronald
Hayhoe, Barney
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Hicks, Robert
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Holland, Philip
Redmond, Robert


Biffen, John
Hornby, Richard
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Biggs-Davison, John
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Boscawen, Robert
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Ridsdale, Julian


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hunt, John
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Bowden, Andrew
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Bray, Ronald
James, David
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Rost, Peter


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Jessel, Toby
Russell, Sir Ronald


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Jopling, Michael
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N &amp; M)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Scott, Nicholas


Burden, F. A.
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Carlisle, Mark
Kimball, Marcus
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Channon, Paul
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Speed, Keith


Chapman, Sydney
Kinsey, J. R.
Spence, John


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Kitson, Timothy
Stainton, Keith


Clegg, Walter
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Stanbrook, Ivor


Cockeram, Eric
Knox, David
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Cooke, Robert
Lane, David
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Cooper, A. E.
Le Marchant, Spencer
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Cormack, Patrick
Longden, Sir Gilbert
Stokes, John


Costain, A. P.
Loveridge, John
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Critchley, Julian
Luce, R. N.
Sutcliffe, John


Crouch, David
MacArthur, Ian
Tapsell, Peter


Dean, Paul
McCrindle, R. A.
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Dixon, Piers
McLaren, Martin
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Temple, John M.


Dykes, Hugh
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Eden, Sir John
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Madel, David
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Emery, Peter
Marten, Neil
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Mather, Carol
Tilney, John


Fidler, Michael
Mawby, Ray
Tugendhat, Christopher


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Moate, Roger
Ward, Dame Irene


Fortescue, Tim
Money, Ernle
Warren, Kenneth


Fowler, Norman
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Weatherill, Bernard


Fox, Marcus
Monro, Hector
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Fry, Peter
Montgomery, Fergus
Winterton, Nicholas


Gibson-Watt, David
More, Jasper
Woodnutt, Mark


Goodhart, Philip
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Worsley, Marcus


Gorst, John
Mudd, David
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Neave, Airey
Younger, Hn. George


Gray, Hamish
Normanton, Tom



Green, Alan
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
TELLERS FOR THE NOES: 


Grylls, Michael
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Mr. Victor Goodhew and


Gummer, J. Selwyn
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Mr. Oscar Murton.


Gurden, Harold
Page, John (Harrow, W.)



Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Percival, Ian

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Speaker: The next Amendment is No. 11. Ihave received a request that that Amendment should be divided. I therefore ask the Minister formally to move, in page 2, line 37, leave out subsection (5). It will be in order at the same time to discuss the leaving out of subsection (6) and the three Amendments standing in the names of the hon. Members for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding), Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) and Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Charles R. Morris):

No. 12, in page 2, line 38, leave out '60' and insert '70'.

No. 13, in page 2, line 40, leave out from 'category' to end of line 41.

No. 14, in page 3, line 8, after 'a', insert 'local'.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Chataway: I beg to move Amendment No. 11, in page 2, line 37, leave out subsection (5).
In Committee we had considerable debate about the news service and current affairs. It was reasonable that we


should have discussed it in some detail, because there is widespread agreement that one of the most important advantages to be gained from introducing competition in radio is to have an alternative source of news. I think that everybody wants to see that.
In Committee an Amendment was passed which would effectively have stopped any station specialising in news and current affairs. Those who voted for that Amendment did so for a variety of different and conflicting reasons. I am asking the House to remove that subsection which would prevent a specialist station. I hope that, in moving the Amendment, I can give some reassurance to those of my hon. Friends who were worried about the particular proposal which I advanced in Committee and are anxious about the Authority's plans.
The Authority believes, and I agree, that the best way to provide a good central news service for commercial radio is to have the second London station specialising in news and current affairs. There will be two stations in London: one a general entertainment station and the other a news station. It may be a news station on the American model specialising entirely in news, or it may have a somewhat wider remit in that it will include other talk, but it will be a station specialising in that respect. Those who provide that service will also provide national and international news to the network as a whole. This is what the Authority has envisaged.
This arrangement has considerable advantages. It means that at the centre there will be a professional radio news outfit with considerable resources, getting part of its revenue direct from its advertising in London and part from the service which it provides to the other stations. Those who work for it will not only be supplying a service for others to use but will have the satisfaction of putting out programmes in London which they will be able to hear. It has the advantage for London of providing a potentially good, almost round-the-clock, provision of news alternative to the B.B.C. There are great attractions in this scheme.
Some of my hon. Friends were worried on a number of points. I have discussed further with the I.T.A. some of

the anxieties which were raised in Committee. First, there was the worry that all the stations would have to take this central service, which is the position in television. The I.T.N. is taken by all the regional television companies. They have to pay for and take it.
There is a different situation in radio. First, we want much more flexibility. It is right that the stations should be enabled to use the central news service as they wish; not to provide a quarter or half an hour in the day as is done by the regional television companies which simply take in toto the news service supplied from the centre. Radio is more flexible than that.
It will be up to any station to make use of the services of the national and international news source as it wishes. It might opt to lead on a national story, using an item from the central source, with a local item next. Alternatively, it might broadcast a bulletin of purely local news.
The Authority will take the view that it is not necessary to compel stations to take the central news service or to contribute to its cost. However, the Authority will have to be satisfied about the adequacy of the alternative source of news that any station is using if it is not taking the central source. The Authority also has an obligation to satisfy itself about the standard and impartiality of news broadcasts.
One of the larger out-of-London stations may wish to provide its own service of national news. This would be expensive, but it is a possibility. I understand the hope of my hon. Friends that there will be more than one source, and there is enormous advantage to be gained from the introduction of commercial radio because there will be two sources of radio news.
My hon. Friends look to the example of the United States, with C.B.S., N.B.C. and Westinghouse all providing good news services, and I regard this as part of a healthy democracy. What I have described is the current thinking of the Authority.

Mr. Gorst: Will new Clauses 1 and 2—the provisions that have crept back into the Bill giving newspapers the right to acquire an interest in stations—be


utilised to enable London newspapers with a significant circulation which would be likely to be affected by the activities of the all-news station to buy into the all-news station as of right?

Mr. Chataway: They would not have a prescriptive right to buy into both London stations.

Mr. Richard: The right hon. Gentleman said that last night. From where does he get that information?

Mr. Chataway: If the hon. and learned Gentleman is querying the point, I will look at the wording of the provision again. The advice I have is that there could be no question of a newspaper having a right to participate in both London stations.
If the hon. and learned Gentleman were able to persuade my right hon. Friend that there was a danger of such an interpretation being placed on the Bill, my right hon. Friend would be willing to table the necessary Amendment in another place. I hope that I can satisfy the House that there is no question of a newspaper having a right to buy into both. It is the view of the Authority that participation under new Clause 2 would be likely to be in the general entertainment station, with the minority shareholding being offered in that station.

Mr. Gorst: Is my right hon. Friend saying, in other words, that there will be an option, if the Authority so permits, for a newspaper to buy into the general entertainment station, but that if it were affected in the way that new Clauses I and 2 state by the activities of the all-news station, then even though the Authority might agree that it was affected in that way, it would not be able to buy into that all-news station but only into the general entertainment station? Alternatively, would a newspaper in that position have an option to buy into either one or the other?

Mr. Chataway: I will look into the point.

Mr. Richard: It would be unfair of my hon. Friends to press the right hon. Gentleman too far on this point if he does not know the answer. I understand the position well. However, I must probe the matter further. If the Authority will not allow a newspaper to buy into the

all-news station, what is the point of leaving the legal right of purchase into that station in the Bill? This right seems to be superfluous.

Mr. Chataway: The point that has been raised is not whether newspapers in London or in any other town in which there was more than one station would have the right to participate in both stations—

Mr. Richard: Mr. Richard rose—

Mr. Chataway: I have told the hon. and learned Gentleman of the intention. My right hon. Friend will be prepared to examine the wording of the provision to satisfy himself that what is feared is not a possibility.
If, therefore, a newspaper had the right to buy into only one or other and not into both, it would be for the Authority to decide what the arrangements between the two stations should be. The view is that the shares would be more likely to be made available for this purpose in the general entertainment station.

Mr. Richard: I put this question yesterday. What, in common sense, is the justification of allowing a newspaper to buy into an all-news station with which it is in direct competition for advertisement revenue?

Mr. Chataway: The hon. and learned Gentleman is jogging back to an argument we had on an earlier Amendment. I do not see that there would necessarily be any over-riding objection to a London newspaper being a part of the winning consortium and, in that way, perhaps having a larger stake than it would otherwise have had simply by exercising its later option to buy in. It does not seem that the concentration of power that would be thus involved would be unacceptable.
The Bill contains a provision that no newspaper which has a monopoly in its area should be able to have control of the station in its area, and I believe that to be a reasonable provision. That is probably about as far as one should go. I do not wish to suggest that the Authority would necessarily say to the Evening Standard or Evening News, "You may not be part of a consortium bidding for an all-news station."

Mr. Richard: The right hon. Gentleman will recall that my hon. Friends opposed this provision in Committee. He will also recall the ground of our opposition. He will further know that our attitudes have perhaps been mollified somewhat between that stage and now. However, if he goes on expressing thoughts along the lines that the Evening Standard and Evening News should be part runners of such a station in London, he will be in danger of breaking even the fragile bond that exists between the two Front Benches over this matter.

Mr. Chataway: I would not wish to mislead the hon. and learned Gentleman or to give any assurances on behalf of the I.B.A. which I do not feel entitled to give.

Mr. Gorst: If the Evening News and Evening Standard are to be allowed into an all-news station, they will, in effect, be suppliers of national and international news to the whole of the country.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Chataway: What I have said is that there is, in my view and, I believe, in the Authority's view, no reason to debar a newspaper group—the particular group we have mentioned is a group which owns London newspapers—from being part of the consortium that would run the news station. Those who take the view that newspapers have to be entirely separate from television and radio would object to that as a proposition. The Authority will naturally be concerned to ensure that it chooses the best contractor. It may be that I.T.N. could be a part of that consortium. Certainly there have been suggestions that I.T.N. might play a rôle. Whether or not I.T.N. was a member of the consortium, I have no doubt that the news station would work in close conjunction and collaboration with I.T.N. The Authority's concern will simply be to choose the best of the consortia that will apply. The Authority will take into account the need for it to be as independent as possible, obviously, and of as high a standard as possible.

Mr. Whitehead: Surely the Minister would agree that the whole strength of I.T.N. is that it is a non-profit-making company owned by the 15 television companies and the Authority. Newspapers

do not have any kind of prescriptive right to buy in or to have part control of it.

Mr. Chataway: We were talking about the Authority choosing the best company that it can. Whether or not that would include any newspaper interest should, in my view, be for the Authority to decide. I could envisage that the best consortium might well contain a newspaper.

Mr. Whitehead: Mr. Whitehead rose—

Mr. Chataway: The hon. Gentleman is on to a different point, and I will answer it. Presumably the hon. Gentleman wants to see in radio the I.T.N. system, a company which is owned by all the other contracting radio companies. In radio this would be likely to be a less satisfactory system than it is in television because it would be owned by 60 stations as opposed to 14 or 15. It seems, therefore, that there are great advantages in the arrangements I have described.
What the Bill would not rule out—it would certainly be within the competence of the Authority to do this if it wished, although I am bound to say that it is not its current thinking—is to have a company such as the hon. Gentleman suggests both to run a London news station and to provide the central news service. There is nothing in the Bill to prohibit the Authority from doing that. If the Authority came to the conclusion that there were no private applicants in which it had complete confidence, it may be that it would turn to that solution; but that is not its current intention.

Mr. Whitehead: Would the Minister take this matter a stage further and give an undertaking that the Authority might also consider whether the best solution may not be, in view of some of the difficulties which have emerged in the interrogation that the Minister is undergoing, to allow I.T.N. to extend its services into radio to provide national and international news at the radio level?

Mr. Chataway: That would be a less satisfactory solution, because it would mean that no new source of news would be set up. It is not impossible that if if there were no satisfactory applicant the Authority would wish, perhaps, to look at that alternative. But what that


would mean—and these are the two potential disadvantages—is that one would not be creating any new source; one would be extending I.T.N.'s remit. Also, the danger of radio—as the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) has left the Chamber, I will not continue to answer his question. I see now that he has returned. What a remarkable performance.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) was worried about ensuring that any set up such as this, the all-London news station, would not be subsidised by the regions. I can assure him that the Authority would be strongly opposed to any arrangement of that kind. The Authority has the right to determine the price that is paid on any programme exchange between any companies. That is a power which it has in relation to television as well as to radio. In exercising its powers in this respect—if it had to—for determining the price which companies outside London would pay for the central service of news, the Authority would be principally concerned to ensure that that central news service did not exploit its near monopoly position.
The Authority would be concerned in these respects principally, therefore, to ensure that the companies were not being made to pay more for the news service than they should. The Authority would not wish to see, and would avoid, a situation in which there was any question of the contributions from the companies being used to subsidise that part of the news station concerned with the London service.
The Authority is anxious in these arrangements to maintain the maximum flexibility so as to get the best use out of radio. There would be no question, for example, of prescribing any number of minutes which a station had to take of national and international news. Given the nature of radio, it could well be that on some days stations would carry little or nothing in the way of national or international news. There might be major stories breaking in their locality which they felt were of overriding importance. On the other hand, on other days, national news might take up virtually the whole of the broadcasting time of a local station. For example, on the day after polling day for a General Election, results

are coming through which determine what the complexion of the Government will be. If it is lively, a radio service will be continually flashing over to a central news service. That is one of the important points to remember.
We have to ensure that we have a good central source of news. It will be used by the stations in varying degrees. On some occasions they will not want very much. On many occasions they will want a great deal. They will not be able to use that service and to draw on it in a major way when it is needed unless it is there and it is strong. For these reasons, the combining of a central source of news with a news station has much to commend it.
I pass to subsection (6). This seemed to be passed in Committee without a great deal of discussion of the implications of the Amendment. We were all principally concerned in Committee with whether there should be a central news service and what form it should take. Regarding the Amendment, the Authority takes the view that it would not find it acceptable for a news service to be supplied wholly from a local newspaper. The B.B.C. has tried it with its local radio stations and has found it to be unsatisfactory. The Authority's thinking is that this is not what it would want to see in its radio stations. But if we leave this provision in the Bill, it may well inhibit a perfectly sensible collaboration between the local newspaper and the station. It may well mean that none of the news service could be provided from the resources of a newspaper. One can envisage a situation in which it would be perfectly sensible for specialist correspondents to be broadcasting on the radio and writing in the newspapers. There are many areas in which it might well seem that there should be such co-operation. I think, for instance, of a drama correspondent.
The Amendment also sought to ensure that only suitably qualified journalists should be employed in the news service. I agree that the collection and preparation of news should be done by competent persons, but it would be strange if we were to allow these provisions to stand in the Bill imposing this requirement in relation to journalists but in relation to nobody else employed in local radio. The inference that might well be drawn, if any inference were to


be drawn, and if any exact meaning could be attributed to "suitably qualified", would be that it did not matter whether the engineers, musicians, station managers and others employed in local radio were qualified.
I believe that these provisions are not required in the Bill. I therefore hope that the House will agree to the deletions of subsections (5) and (6).

Mr. Richard: It is apparent that the Minister has not considered these two subsections in relation to new Clauses Nos. 1 and 2. The idea that a London news station can be set up and, it having been set up and the Authority being about to award the contract to a consortium including neither the Evening News nor the Evening Standard, then the Authority would be bound under new Clauses Nos. 1 and 2 to offer the London Evening News and the London Evening Standard the right to buy into the consortium, with all that that might imply in terms of news gathering, news content, current affairs programmes, editorial, and so on, fills one with horror.
I assume that the object of allowing newspapers to buy in is not merely to allow them to have some vague financial stake. The prospect of having a newspaper which is as politically committed—whether one agrees with it is neither here nor there—as is the London Evening Standard as part of the consortium which is running the main source of news throughout the whole of the United Kingdom is a prospect which any fair-minded individual in the House and in the country at large will view with horror. I can imagine what the Minister's reaction would be were the proposition to be stood on its head.
There has been a great deal of trouble, as the Minister will know better than anybody, within the last year or so about allegations of bias from both sides of the House against the Independent Television Authority, and particularly against the British Broadcasting Corporation. If the London Evening News and the London Evening Standard are to be given the right to purchase their way into the programme company that is to provide the main source of news for the whole of the commercial network, the allegations of bias that we have heard in the last two years will be as nothing com-

pared with those that we shall hear in the future.
I would not trust to have as the disseminator of news for the whole of the commercial network a consortium which had as one of its major shareholders and which had, perhaps, as one of its major organisers and administrators, the Beaverbrook Group. It would be grossly unfair; and, even if it were not being grossly unfair, it would seem to be being grossly unfair. I cannot imagine that this is something that we wish to achieve in the setting-up of the London news station. I imagine that the Minister would wish to strain every nerve to fight that.
It may be hoped that the monument to the right hon. Gentleman when he leaves this Ministry in about three or four hours' time is to be the commercial radio network he has set up and that the London news station is to be the shining jewel in the whole of the network. If the Minister is not prepared to ensure that politically committed newspapers are excluded from the running of that central news disseminating authority, I am not prepared to support his proposition.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Chataway: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman saying that nobody who is involved with any newspaper should be a part of the consortium that runs the news service? This would be to exclude many people. The hon. and learned Gentleman would not seriously suggest that Parliament should try to determine which would be suitable newspaper groups and which would not. That must be left to the Authority. Finally, the hon. and learned Gentleman might consider that indirectly through their shareholdings there are large numbers of newspapers which are shareholders of I.T.A.

Mr. Richard: Of course I am not saying that the House of Commons should say which newspapers should be allowed in and which newspapers should not be allowed in. I am saying that the House of Commons should ensure that no newspaper, particularly a London regional one, which is the one which under new Clause No. 1(2) is most likely to be affected and the one which is the most


likely to be considered, should have an automatic right of entry into a programme company whose main purpose is the gathering and dissemination of news.
After all, the effect of new Clause No. 1(2), which we considered in sufficient detail last night, is that in an area covered by a local station—we are here considering the whole of London—if a newspaper has a substantial circulation in the area, prima facie it has a right of entry. That is what the Clause says. If I am wrong about that, I will give way.

Mr. Chataway: The hon. and learned Gentleman will recollect that the Authority has the right now, as we have revised Clause 2(1), not to allow a shareholding to anybody if it considers that it would be contrary to the public interest to do so. Therefore, if the Authority took the view that it would not be in the public interest to allow anybody to participate in any station, it would not allow him to do so.

Mr. Richard: That may be, but let us look at the realities of what we are considering. The whole of the Minister's speeches on Second Reading and in Committee on this aspect were devoted to saying how important it was that we had a central London news station. The Minister has continually said that there are to be two stations for London—one will be the normal entertainment station and the other will deal with news. The news station to be set up in London is designed to be the principal source of news for the whole of the network for the United Kingdom.
Under Clause 1(2) the effect is that the London Evening News and the London Evening Standard have an automatic right of entry into that programme contractor. The only way in which that right of entry can be denied them is if the Authority in its discretion thinks that the broadcasting of the programmes would be unlikely
to have a materially adverse effect on the financial position of the newspaper
or if it considers it against the public interest to allow the newspaper in.
Is the Minister seriously arguing that he is prepared to say now that it is against the public interest to allow the London Evening Standard and the London Evening News the automatic right

of entry into the London news-gathering service? If the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to say that, I merely say on this part of the debate that we do not need the provisions in the Bill. If there is an automatic presumption that it is against the public interest to allow the London Evening Standard and the London Evening News a direct participation in the London news-gathering service, I should be interested to hear a Conservative Minister say that. The logic of the Minister's position must take him there. When considering London we are considering eight million people, a news service to be provided by a commercial station, and two newspapers which have a substantial circulation in area, namely, the London Evening News and the London Evening Standard.
I say again—I am sure that I carry most fair-minded hon. Members with me—that if the position is that one or other—or both—of those two totally politically committed newspapers is to have a direct say in the way in which the principal source of news for the whole commercial network is to be run, one can only regard that as totally wrong.

Mr. Chataway: Mr. Chataway rose—

Mr. Richard: I am about to finish. The right hon. Gentleman will know that, both in Committee and since, I have been reluctant, on behalf of the Opposition, to lose an additional news service. [Interruption.] There is no need for the Minister to froth at me. All he needs to do is to read Hansard. I said that I thought that the idea of having alternative source of news to the B.B.C. was desirable. I am sure that he will concede at least that.
If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to have the Opposition's support in setting up a central news service based in London for the whole of the network, he will have to give us an assurance now—we are entitled to ask for it—that the automatic right of newspapers to buy in should be excluded. Let the Evening Standard, if it wishes, buy into Radio London. It should not buy into London Radio News, and there is no justification, practical or logical, for giving such a right.
I had hoped that we should be in a position to give the Minister support in


the setting up of his news station. That had been my attitude until he spoke today and deviated from his brief. Indeed, until then I was certain that he would have my support. But once he started not only envisaging but almost positively anticipating participation by the London Evening News and the Evening Standard in the principal source of news for the whole network, the Minister began to lose me.

Mr. Fowler: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman saying that the Evening News and the Evening Standard should be automatically excluded from consideration for a central news station? If that is his view, will he answer this further question? He has made a lot of what I take to be his fear of bias, and political bias at that. Can he give any examples from commercial television showing where editorial content or other matter in television programmes has been affected by newspaper holdings?

Mr. Richard: The great difference in television is that Independent Television News is owned by the programme companies. There is no direct participation by a Fleet Street newspaper in the I.T.N. company.
The hon. Gentleman asks whether I am arguing that they should be automatically excluded. What I am saying is that they should certainly not have an automatic right of entry, which is what they will have as matters now stand. If that automatic right of entry is taken out, it becomes a matter for the Authority to sort out which consortium it wants, but, at the moment, the Authority could decide to give it to consortium X and then, before it could award the contract to consortium X, it would have to go to the Evening Standard and the Evening News and say, "You have a substantial circulation in London, and you may be adversely affected by this news station. Do you wish to participate?" That is a nonsense, and the Minister ought to do something about it.

Mr. Fowler: But the hon. and learned Gentleman must be aware that not all the news on television is provided by I.T.N. Newspaper groups have interests in regional stations producing regional news of their own kind. He has not answered my question. Has he any evi-

dence that a newspaper holding has led to bias in that regional news?

Mr. Richard: One hears of instances of bias in various parts of the country. I put the point back to the hon. Gentleman. I cannot, on my feet now, give specific instances of bias. Of course not. I did not know that the point was going to arise until 25 minutes ago, when the Minister made his extraordinary speech. We are here envisaging newspapers having an automatic right to purchase a shareholding, and the measure of power and control which goes with a shareholding, in the principal news service for the commercial network, and, by a provision in the Bill, which I regard as a nonsense, we are brought back to the point that the London Evening News and the Evening Standard will have an automatic right of entry of that sort.
I put it to the House—I almost said "in my respectful submission", as though I were addressing a jury—that that provision is a nonsense. It is plainly wrong, and the Minister ought to give an undertaking that he will exclude them from that automatic right.

Mr. Gorst: I see that my right hon. Friend is about to depart, so I shall put this point to him at once. If new Clauses 1 and 2 are to be in the Bill—I voted for them yesterday—I should have no objection to the London newspapers affected in the way envisaged buying in and having a share if they bought into a station which was not the all-news station. But if they are to buy into the all-news station, I find it totally unacceptable. I am not even sure that I find it attractive that existing newspaper groups or organisations should be the prime shareholders. But perhaps that is a matter which can be safely left to the discretion of the Authority.
I hope that the Minister will consider again, before we finish our debate to-night, whether it is right or desirable to allow an option to buy into the all-news station.
I welcome the Minister's assurances that it will no longer be obligatory for stations set up outside London either to take or to pay for the service provided by the all-news station in London. It is highly desirable that that amount of national and international news required by a local commercial station should be


obtained freely, without dictation from any authority or government, from whatever source the station operator desires.
I am sure that most reasonable-minded Members will agree, also, that it is highly desirable that there be no obligation, or even suspicion in the mind of applications for a franchise, if their application makes clear that they will not be using the all-news service, that this will be held as a mark against them. I hope that in due course, when it is set up, the I.B.A. will bear that point in mind.
When, in Committee, in company with my hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Proudfoot), I opposed this provision by putting down an Amendment, I had another reservation of a different kind. I felt that we should be wasting a valuable wavelength which we could ill afford to dispose of to a specialist service at this stage, in view of the frequency shortage. In North America, where there is an abundance of frequencies in comparison with our situation, it is possible for 60 stations to operate in, say, the New York area, and for one of them to be a specialist station of this nature. In our situation, however, I do not in any way retract the comments which I made in Committee about this being a waste.
However, the Minister's concession regarding the obligation on stations outside London satisfies me on the core of my objection, so I shall be happy not to stand in his way on these Amendments.

7.0 p.m.

The other part of the Amendment, which is to delete subsection (6), would remove the provision which states that a news service shall not be regarded as independent if it is provided by newspapers circulating in the locality specified in the contract. Such newspapers will, therefore, be able to provide a service. But Amendment No. 52, which we have yet to reach, says that the Authority will not be allowed to enter into a contract with a television contractor to provide television programmes for an area and at the same time provide local sound broadcasts for that area.

As I understand it, the newspapers are to be allowed to provide a news service which the television programme contractor in the same area will not be able to provide, even though it may have a

news-gathering organisation. This does not seem fair as between one medium of communications and another. There is one law for the Press and another for the television companies. I should be grateful if the Minister, who appears to think that I have misunderstood the point, would put me right.

Mr. Chataway: I hesitate to intervene but the Amendment to which we shall come later is simply a drafting Amendment which ties up a loose end to make it absolutely clear that the television contractor cannot own a radio franchise in his area. I understand that it is not the Authority's intention that radio companies should hand over their news service to a local newspaper, and there is no disagreement in principle about that. All I have argued is that the Amendment imports an unnecessary rigidity and might stop sensible collaboration.

Mr. Gorst: If my right hon. Friend is saying that a television contractor who has a minority shareholding in the franchise in his own area will be permitted to supply programmes on the same basis as that on which a newspaper is permitted to supply news, using the same staffs, the same organisation, then I would concede that the two are at least on a par. But will he look very carefully at the wording of the Amendment when we come to it? Perhaps I should be out of order to pursue it further at this stage, but I hope that he will give a categorical assurance when we come to the point. I am happy to withdraw my opposition to the principle of an all-news station.

Mr. Golding: We were pleased to hear Mr. Speaker say that we could vote separately on subsection (5) and subsection (6) because at the time we asked for the separate votes we thought that perhaps the reasons for our opposition to subsection (5) would have disappeared. But as I have listened, I have reverted to my former hostility to the all-news station. In London I can see the threat of the Evening News and the Evening Standard being allowed to buy themselves into an all-news station. I regard this with distaste because of the point which I raised with the Minister yesterday.
I have no doubt that an all-news station could have a very adverse effect on the circulation of an evening newspaper. The


I.T.N. is not a threat to daily newspapers because it presents its news when newspapers are stale. The newspapers will do their best to ensure that television does not present news at breakfast-time, when the newspapers are fresh, or less fresh than the television news.
If these two newspapers obtain an undue influence—and that it all they need—in the London news station, that station will operate in such a way that takes into account the technical difficulties of producing news as quickly in newspapers as on radio. Certainly the ownership would have an influence on policy. But the situation is even worse than my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) said. Subsections (5) and (6) taken together present a very grave situation. The Evening News and the Evening Standard could have an undue influence in an all-news station in London, and I do not believe that the I.T.A. at present would declare that to be against the public interest. They would have an undue influence over policy. Under subsecttion (6) they would be prohibited from providing news from their resources, but if the Minister has his way the all-news station could draw its news from the Evening Standard and the Evening News. It could derive its coverage from the newspapers which already have a stake in the all-news station.

Mr. Fowler: Surely this enables the newspapers to supplement the news service that is provided by the central news service. This seems a flexible arrangement. It does not mean that it replaces the news service.

Mr. Golding: The Bill does not say that. Whatever the Minister may say, he will have gone from office within three hours. God save the Minister. There is no point in talking about the Minister because we have two Ministers.

Mr. Kaufman: Is this not precisely a situation which we faced in Standing Committee in that whenever we asked for something it was never given in the form of an Amendment but it was given by the Minister in the form of an assurance. We said at that time that he was "demob happy", and now he has been demobbed.

Mr. Golding: As so often in the past, my hon. Friend the Member for Man-

Chester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) has made my point for me. The Bill can provide for the creation of an all-news station. The two newspapers can take part in the control of that all-news station. It then gives them the power to obtain their information from their own resources and there will be nothing in the Act which says that the all-news station must have a separate staff.
My arguments have been directed to the situation in London. On the Standing Committee I was at odds to some extent with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Barons Court because he was speaking as a London Member, as one who equates "national" with "London". Several hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, speaking as provincial Members, objected to getting news from London. We were concerned that local radio stations should have a choice of national and international news, because the importance of such news appears different according to where it is heard.
An apocryphal story illustrates my point. It is said that early in September, 1939 the Manchester Guardian, which used to be a provincial paper, with its Gothic print and advertisements on the front page, had on an inside page a headline which said, "The price of cotton slumps", and further down the column there was a small item which said, "The cause of the slump is believed to be an outbreak of war with Germany." That in a sense illustrates the North-West mentality and my point that even international and national news is seen differently according to whether it is seen from Hull or from London, for example. A dispute with Iceland is of more importance in Hull than in London. I could multiply my examples, but I do not want to speak for as long as did the Minister.
It is most unfortunate that the Minister wants to delete the requirement
that the collection and preparation of news is performed by suitably qualified journalists
We know that there can be an argument about "suitably qualified", but at the extreme we know what the requirement is. It is quality. We want in commercial radio a situation like that in my area of North Staffordshire with Radio Stoke. We want the highest quality presentation of news. It is not sufficient to talk simply in terms of competent individuals—

Mr. Fowler: Mr. Fowler rose—

Mr. Golding: I give way to a vested interest.

Mr. Fowler: As a journalist with fewer vested interests than many, I suspect, I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman for the slightest hint of what he imagines to be meant by "suitably qualified journalists". As he has criticised the Bill for being vague, he has a small duty at least to give a hint of the meaning he attaches to the term.

Mr. Golding: If I did that, I should go into far too great detail. If the hon. Gentleman wants a working definition, I am prepared to put him in touch with the National Union of Journalists, which will provide him with it.

Mr. Kaufman: A suitably qualified journalist is a member of the National Union of Journalists, as an unsuitably qualified one is a member of the Institute of Journalists.

Mr. Golding: As so often happened in Committee, my hon. Friend only makes my case worse.

Mr. Proudfoot: There has been a case—the first of its kind in my division—of one of my local newspapers being forced to carry out training in the meaning of the Industrial Training Act, so presumably a fully qualified journalist is now one who has gone through proper training as laid down by the Training Board.

Mr. Golding: That illustrates the all-party alliance on this point.

Mr. Gorst: Would the hon. Gentleman also agree that a suitably qualified radio journalist is a very different animal from a suitably qualified newspaper journalist?

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Golding: Certainly.
There can be no doubt that this provision is important, and worthy of rather greater discussion than we have had this evening. The Government should examine both subsections again and not rush into deleting them. Perhaps subsection (6) could be worded differently to read, "that a new service shall not, for the purpose of this section, be regarded as independent if it is mainly or wholly provided by a newspaper circulating in the locality specified in the

contract". I take the Minister's point that as it stands the provision would prohibit any item of news from being taken, but it will be unsatisfactory if we have local news stations which take all their news from the local newspaper.
Under the new Clause added to the Bill yesterday the local newspaper can obtain undue influence over the policies. If it can then provide the hard news from its own resources, we on this side know what will happen. There will be a uniformity of view and presentation by the local newspaper and the local radio station. If there is any merit in the Bill it is that it will possibly provide an alternative news service to our communities. If the subsections are deleted, I very much fear that that alternative will not come to pass.

Mr. Fowler: I very much support what my right hon. Friend is doing in his Amendment. The hon. and learned Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) yesterday invited me to look very closely at subsection (6), and I have done so. I have a certain sympathy with it, but there are great difficulties, particularly that of defining "suitably qualified journalists". When I was in Fleet Street a suitably qualified journalist was someone whose shorthand speed reached a certain standard. I suspect that if that were the criterion now there would be a considerable hole in the journalistic ranks. I suspect that, as the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) said, the criterion is the holding of an N.U.J. card, or at least an equivalent.
Someone who has been a qualified journalist can go into other fields. There are men with whom I have worked who regard journalists who go over to public relations as having lost their souls, though that is not a personal view of mine. As for journalists who turn up as the Press officer to Labour Prime Ministers, some journalists would consider that a descent into the Inferno.

Mr. Kaufman: Even during that infernal episode in my own journalistic career, I maintained my journalistic bona fides by continuing as film critic of the Listener, to which I contributed a regular column over a considerable period. Therefore, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not regard me as totally lost to the trade of journalism.

Mr. Fowler: I am happy to say that the hon. Gentleman has now, perforce of circumstance, given up his public relations rôle and has come back into the journalistic ranks, to which, without presumption, I welcome him.
In the vast majority of cases with which we are dealing, journalists will, I am sure, be employed to do the news-gathering. This is for the simple reason that news-gathering is a specialised and difficult job. Any company knows and any consortium running a radio station will know that to be true. They know that they run the risk of libel and they will therefore take safeguards against it. I confidently expect the journalistic function to be carried out predominantly by experienced journalists.

Mr. Whitehead: These are pious hopes, but what is there in the Bill to prevent a disc jockey from operating for himself a "rip and read" service as the sole news service of a local station? Nothing.

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman will no doubt make his own contribution. Personally, I accept that the journalistic function will be carried out predominantly by experienced journalists. However, it is one thing to expect that the natural laws governing journalism and newspapers will also govern the news-gathering process in local radio, so that the function will be carried out by journalists, but it is quite another to say that it is only this class—which I find impossible to define—which shall actually do it. Journalism above all is an activity which needs new talent, fresh sources of recruits. I do not think that necessarily they always come, although predominantly they will come, from the ranks of qualified journalists if by that is meant members of the newspaper unions.
When commercial television started, what percentage of its news-gathering business was done by qualified journalists? Was Robin Day a member of the N.U.J.? I do not know what were the N.U.J. credentials of my right hon. Friend the former Minister of Posts and Telecommunications. People should have the opportunity of going into journalism and into the news-reporting business without necessarily having the qualifications and having done the training necessary, for example, for N.U.J. membership.

Mr. Kaufman: I think the hon. Gentleman misunderstands the nature of this subsection and the nature of the rôle of, for example, Mr. Robin Day or anyone else who might do an equivalent job—indeed, of the right hon. Gentleman, the former Minister, who is now going to help greater Manchester. I should like an assurance about that at any rate. The subsection refers to
…the collection and preparation of…news…
but it does not refer to the person who broadcasts what has been collected and prepared. Mr. Day did not go out into the street and collect and prepare the news. He got what professional journalists provided him with. He sat in front of a camera and used his own particular talent to communicate it to the viewer.

Mr. Fowler: I do not accept this. The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. Many of the people whom he and I may regard as anchor men have done a great deal of news-gathering themselves. It would be a brave announcer who went on presenting a programme without being fully briefed and without having done much of the research himself. I do not accept the distinction the hon. Gentleman is making and I stand firmly by the point that journalism above all things must not be a closed shop and that it should be possible for fresh sources of talent to enter it.
I have no sympathy with subsection (5) as it stands. I regard as one of the most important and exciting developments the prospect of an all-news station in London. I know that some of my hon. Friends and some hon. Members opposite may disagree. I believe such stations already run successfully in the United States. I believe that there is enormous potential for having one running in London. It also effectively answers part of the case of those who say that commercial radio is simply going to deal with pop music and sweet music. It is something which is and will be quite new in radio in this country.
Radio is very much a natural medium to use. It can be presented sensibly and objectively. Perhaps it even has an advantage over television inasmuch as the television producer may be thinking of what is going to be a good picture


situation, whereas his real criterion should be whether the situation is significant or not. I believe that the radio producer has a considerable advantage. His criterion can be and should only be whether the news is significant or not.
I believe also that such an all-news station would allow the public rapidly to get up to date with the news. The listener can hear the news literally minutes after it has been made, or even at the same time as it is being made. I predict that the new station will attract a very big audience. It will also provide one of the major justifications of the Bill in that this is something which the B.B.C. should have done several years ago. I am not one of those who criticise the B.B.C. for everything it does. I think that it produces good radio news affairs programmes like "The World at One" and "The World Tonight". But I think that instead of developing pop and sweet music programmes it would have been well advised to have developed an all-news radio programme.
I believe that if this all-news station gets off the ground—I believe that it will and will prove a success—the B.B.C. will be prompt to copy it. Just as the I.T.N. set an example, so I think that commmercial radio's all-news station will do the same to the B.B.C. I am not saying that the B.B.C. is bad but I am saying that the competition will do it a good deal of good, and above all—perhaps this is the major justification of the Bill—Amendment No.11 is very much in the interests of the listener.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Whitehead: It is with some sadness that one contemplates in the debate thus far the abject failure of the Minister to take any account whatsoever, in considering subsections (5) and (6), of the proceedings of the Standing Committee over the last four and a half months. The despair on my part is equalled only by my dismay at seeing that a fellow member of the National Union of Journalists, the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Fowler) has, clearly enough, not even now read the proceedings of the Committee on an Amendment proposed largely at the suggestion of his own union.
I shall come in a moment to the things which seem to me to stand out among

the errors of the hon. Member for Nottingham, South, but I wish, first of all, in view of the curious statement of the Minister earlier in the debate, to go back to the way in which now we are inextricably tied up, in the proposals for both national and local news services, both by this Amendment and new Clause 1 which was passed by the House yesterday.
We already know that the large Press combines have a double right to buy into radio. All of us who have been approached by some of the interests who wish to put together a consortium of one sort or another in one of the "gravy" contracts, as my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) described them, know that large newspapers, national newspapers, are already getting in on the act. They are getting in on the act to buy a piece of the equity. They do not need but will be greatly strengthened by new Clause 1, and they will be in on the act with a double rôle.
They have, most of them, sufficient accumulations of capital to be able to put up the outlay necessary to buy and equip a station and float a consortium in the early stages, the risk-bearing stages, of a commercial radio. They have got, through the double criteria suggested to us yesterday in new Clause 1, every reason to be able to turn to the Minister and say, "Look, our circulation is affected, our advertising revenue may be affected". We have seen this already and this should materially affect how the House considers these two subsections. The Press combines are able to say, "We ought to get a handout, we ought to get help, because we may be affected and be able to prove that we shall be affected."
We know the agglomeration of power in local newspapers; we know the extent to which over the last five or six years a number of large groups have increasingly taken over control of all the local newspapers in a given area, so that very often, as in the case of the newspapers covering the constituency of the hon. Member for Nottingham, South, the same group owns the local evening paper and the local morning paper. The Minister was unable to deny yesterday that in such a situation presumably those proprietors can come forward wearing two hats and buy their way in under new Clause 1. Now we are saying, if


this Amendment of the Minister goes through, that at both the local and national levels these people will be protected in addition through their right to influence the kind of news collected by the commercial radio station. This seems to me a most alarming situation—a most alarming situation because of the size of the newspaper organisations concerned.

Mr. Chataway: Perhaps it would be convenient if I were to intervene at this point simply to say that while we have not envisaged that it would be reasonable to exclude newspaper groups from the right to take part in the consortium which would run the London news station and the news service, my right hon. Friend is, none the less, willing, in view of the discussion there has been, to look at the question as to whether newspapers in London have the right of buying into two stations—into both stations—and in particular he would wish to look at the possibility that they have the right to buy into the news station. He would wish, in that context, to consider whether the safeguards, to which I referred, in the Bill, are sufficient for the Authority. I hope that that will be of assistance to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) and to hon. Gentlemen opposite who have been anxious on this point—that my right hon. Friend is prepared to make that specific undertaking.

Mr. Whitehead: I very much welcome what the Minister has just said, and, outgoing as he is, I congratulate him upon it, and would want him to know that we shall follow closely what his right hon. Friend his successor decides, after deliberation, about these provisions. I think I speak for hon. Members on this side of the House when I say that we were taken very much by surprise by the apparent revelation in what the Minister said this afternoon about the all-news station. In view of what he has now said he has significantly shortened my own remarks, and he leaves me to concentrate on the way in which, as I see it, the pattern of Press ownership—speaking now of the local commercial stations throughout the country and not of the all-news station—makes exceptionally alarming subsection (6) which he has not said he will reconsider.
One of the things which is disturbing to us is that there appears to be no limit in size of the newspaper combine which can take this kind of control. For example, we were told that the national newspapers will be excluded. I am somewhat alarmed when my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie) tells us that two-thirds of the circulation of the Scottish Daily Express is in Glasgow. Another of the hydra-heads of the Beaverbrook empire raises itself here. Will the Scottish Daily Express be able to claim that it is a local newspaper? Will it be able to say that because it has two-thirds of its circulation in Glasgow, and because it would, therefore, be materially affected by both circulation and advertising revenue considerations, it should have a prescriptive right to buy into the Glasgow station? If it were to have that right we ought to look very carefully indeed at what we are doing if we take out subsection (6).
What I propose to do now is to suggest to the hon. Member for Nottingham, South that he ought to look again at the precise wording of subsection (6). The Minister, in his remarks, said that subsection (6) was going to be an exclusive one; it was going to exclude the local newspapers and those who worked for the local papers from any kind of participation whatever in the local radio station. That simply is not true. All we were saying in subsection (6) was that
the collection and preparation of such news broadcasts is independent and…is performed by suitably qualified journalists; and that a news service shall not, for the purpose of this section, be regarded as independent if it is provided by a newspaper circulating in the locality…".
That is news services as a package—I do not think it necessary to spell that out—provided by the local newspaper. This does not mean to say that suitably qualified individuals, members, no doubt, of the National Union of Journalists, even lukewarm ones like the hon. Member for Nottingham, South, would not be able to participate in the programmes of the local radio station.

Mr. Fowler: I really think that the hon. Member should mind his language slightly on this. We happen to disagree, and this is a point which I have put at National Union of Journalists meetings, but that


does not necessarily mean that I am a lukewarm member of it. Moreover, I would point out to the hon. Member that I represent my constituency, and not the N.U.J.

Mr. Whitehead: Fine words, and they will butter no parsnips with the N.U.J. The N.U.J. is seriously concerned, as the hon. Gentleman should be, with the position of its members, given the cutting down that is already going on inside the profession. The newspapers are not waiting for the onset of commercial radio before sacking people. They are not waiting to provide the evidence of a few heads on the ground or the begging bowl when the opportunity of buying in to the local radio station is available. They are firing people now.
The hon. Gentleman well knows that the combine owned by the P. Bailey Forman group in Nottingham has recently got rid of about a hundred people. In Glasgow another newspaper concern has got rid of double that number. Because all these people are going the local newspaper will be doubly concerned not to see a rival news source operating down the road in an independent commercial radio station. If they can get in on the act, having a prescriptive right to the sale of the equity which the Bill guarantees under new Clause 1, of course they will try to diminish the extent of the news competition, and probably also the circulation competition, that comes from the local radio station. Some of the hon. Gentlemen's friends realise that that is so. That is why, after lengthy consideration, and not as an absurd oversight as the Minister suggested, the Committee in its wisdom decided that it wanted this subsection added to the Bill.
The Minister made great play of what were suitable qualifications. Faithful unto death, the hon. Member for Nottingham, South followed along that line. In Committee I made it clear what "suitably qualified" meant. I said:
I am now defining 'journalist' as the Union itself does, as someone either with four years experience or aged 24, properly paid up and joined. The Union is not exclusive: if someone wishes to become a journalist, he can do so quite rapidly…"—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 18th January, 1972; c. 610.]
As I said then, journalism is not a profession for which there is any particular

training in the sense of a lengthy apprenticeship. If someone wishes to become a journalist he can do so, unless he wishes to join the elite in Fleet Street. Some of the best journalists I know are lads of 18 and 19 straight from school who are learning the trade, and doing it well, in local newspapers. I do not want to stop people like that playing their part in a local radio station, but if they do, I want to see them doing so independently, as journalists reporting an industrial dispute or a local traffic accident or as local drama critics.
What I fear is that, unless there is a qualification in the Bill about the nature of the people who will be doing the news gathering, what was indicated time after time by the interested parties in Committee and before will happen. There will be the disc jockey doubling up, the chap putting on the records, dusting them down, maintaining the turntable and running his own news service as well, tearing off the tape with his free hand. This is the profitable way to do it and the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Proudfoot) knows that. Somewhere along the line in the middle of the "top 40"or between advertising slots when he is not putting on jingles or taking off records he might have time every now and then to pull off the tape. That is not the kind of service that I want to see.
I want to see people able to cut their teeth on news gathering for the local radio station in precisely the way they do on local newspapers. I want to see—and this is a principle to which hon. Gentlemen opposite are supposed to be dedicated—real competition between news sources, and we shall not get it from the Bill if the Amendment which was carried in Committee is taken out. What we shall see are these shaky, creaky, local newspapers, all too often with a bias, able to take a stranglehold on, as well as to get a slice of equity in, the radio stations concerned.

7.45 p.m.

The hon. Member for Nottingham, South asked for evidence that links between newspapers and television companies have been deleterious. I will give him some evidence, but I will not name names and get individuals thrown out of their jobs. The big difference between I.T.N. and the local coverage


and magazine programmes of the television companies is that I.T.N. is a non profit-making independent organisation and there cannot be that sort of interference and control.

Let the hon. Member for Nottingham, South work on a local news magazine in a television company and suggest an item which affects any of the organisations which are part owners of that station and let him see what happens to him. Let him go to the managers and the production chiefs of a television company which has a significant Press holding or a significant cinema holding and say, "I want to do a piece investigating the evils of the Press today", or, "I want to do a piece about why there is semi-monopoly ownership in the cinema industry"—and let him see what happens. Let him hear all the arguments that are put in his way to stop him doing that.

Mr. Kaufman: My hon. Friend is taking extreme examples. Let that journalist simply say one adverse sentence about a film which is showing locally.

Mr. Gorst: If I may cap the point of the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead), let anyone who is in favour of commercial radio try writing to The Times.

Mr. Whitehead: The newspaper campaign in this matter has not been disinterested, although the Editor of The Times may have other reasons which I will not go into for rejecting the letters of the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst).
The processes of discussion and criticism in broadcasting are two-way. If a consortium is allowed to be at least part dominated by Press interests, then equally if the television or radio company concerned is falling upon hard times and there is a legitimate case for Press comment on it, let that Press comment come from those organisations which have a part share in the television or radio company and see what happens.
If the hon. Member for Nottingham, South does not believe me on this point, let him look at the story of London Weekend Television and the absence of comment in a wide range of newspapers for a long period of time when those

papers were part owners of the company. Week in, week out, month in and month out no criticism appeared of the failures of London Weekend Television in the New Statesman because, as we all know, the managing director of the New Statesman is Lord Campbell of Eskan who has a considerable influence in London Weekend Television. I am not saying that he stopped it, but there is an adverse climate and this is not the kind of subject that one wants to enter or which will be well received at the editorial conference, so one pulls away from it.
That is why it is harmful to have cross-media ownership, and why it will be particularly harmful in small local radio stations. We are making a grave mistake here, just as we made a grave mistake in television by allowing newspapers to buy in and to take control.
Let a small local radio station, with all the commercial pressures that play on it, effectively be run by the local newspapers and there will not be that competition and free interchange of information which is necessary. It will be just another small extension of a rather squalid monopoly.

Mr. Proudfoot: It is quite right that newspapers have never given a fair crack of the whip to the case for commercial radio. Indeed it would never have happened had it not been for the pirates who demonstrated that commercial radio in this country was possible.
The hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) mentioned the union to which he belongs, and made a plea for demarcation. He thought that nobody should be allowed to throw more than one switch and that these tasks must be split among the radio station staff. I believe that the small stations could never survive without the all-rounder.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) said that editorial policy was being affected. I recommend him to read the evidence given to the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries by Sir Lew Grade on 23rd February this year. The hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Sir D. Kaberry) asked Sir Lew at Question 467 whether he would like to be on the air from 7 a.m. to 9 a.m.?—in other words.


he was suggesting breakfast television—and Sir Lew replied:
No, I would not. I am absolutely, adamantly against breakfast programmes of the news nature.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme was a member of that Committee and he will have heard the evidence.
Sir Lew was questioned about the profitability of such a venture and Sir Lew said that he would not like to see two hours of continuous news on breakfast programmes. The Chairman of the Committee asked why there was such a tender regard for newspapers. I believe that A.T.V. also owns the Birmingham Post. What is the difference between determining editorial content and purposely suppressing circulation? It is the same thing; it is market sharing. It is like one milkman saying to another "You can take that part of the town and I will take this end of it."
The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) went with that Committee to the United States in the Recess to take evidence about commercial television there. He said only yesterday that the most profitable part of American television was breakfast television which paid for the evening programmes. That evidence to this House is proof that circulation will be tampered with. I believe that, if it is profitable, Sir Lew Grade will rapidly come round to the idea of breakfast television.

Mr. Richard: I remember being asked to take part in a television programme in Memphis, Tennessee, on which at 7.20 a.m. I was expected to talk about the Common Market. I was immediately preceded by an advertisement for English muffins, which I have never seen on this side of the Atlantic. [Hon. Members: "Shame."] Well, I have never seen the sort of muffins I saw on that programme. After the broadcast I said to the gentleman who organised it, "Why on earth do you want a British Member of Parliament to go on television in Memphis at that hour of the morning to talk about Britain and the Common Market?" He said "The answer is simple. At that time of the morning we have a large A-B audience which consists of businessmen in hotel rooms in the process of getting up and shaving". I do not think we have yet reached the stage of having such a beard audience here as they

have for that type of programme in the United States.

Mr. Golding: It was not that type of audience we heard emphasised in the United States. It was the housewives to whom sponsors wished to sell products. They found it much easier and cheaper to sell goods at that end of the day than later in the evening. The point which is being emphasised by the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Proudfoot) is absolutely correct. The Americans cannot understand the attitude of Sir Lew Grade and others in this country, although perhaps they would understand it if their monopoly legislation were as tight as it is here.

Mr. Proudfoot: I am sure the hon. Member is right. Next year in Parliament we shall be dealing with rules about monopoly, and we know that in the United States in the anti-trust legislation there are laws dealing with interlinking directorships.
I was intrigued to hear my hon. Friend speak about current thinking in the I.B.A. I would remind him that the I.B.A. does not yet exist. I have heard all about messages from the grave. That is more like a message from the womb.
I am very suspicious about the I.B.A.-to-be. I believe these consortia will be welded together over a period of time, but it looks as though the newspapers will be able to have the lion's share of this new medium. I do not like the situation. I believe that if the character of the applicants is all right and their credentials are in order, they should be asked to compete in open auction for licences. This would ensure that everything was above board.
The arguments about economies of scale in gathering news and selling advertising time do not interest me. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend has made it absolutely clear that the other 59 stations, apart from the London news stations, will not have news rammed down their throats. I hope that there will be no forced sale. I hope it will not be laid down that a local station will have to take the news from London.
I was intrigued the other night when on my bedside radio I tuned into A.F.N. Europe. When the news came on we were told, "This is the American Forces


Network in Europe bringing you news from A.P. and U.P.I." If that news service is good enough for the American armed forces in a foreign country, it surely is considered to be unbiased. I cannot see the A.F.N. putting out material which they considered to be tampered with politically. The services of A.P. and U.P.I. are available in this country.
The news on local radio will in many cases be live. It will come straight over the telephone and go out on the air. It might be an eye-witness report of an accident, a report of a local baby show, or a local council meeting being reported direct from a lobby in the local council. I believe that much of the news put out by the B.B.C., and certainly that dealt with by I.T.N., has far too much political content. Since these bodies were created by legislation passed in this House, the organisations lean over backwards in reporting too much political news. Therefore, I hope that local station in London will not be taken over that respect.
I thank my right hon. Friend for what he has said. I hope that the fact he has consulted with the new Minister about this subject will ensure that the news station in London will not be taken over by the London evening newspapers.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. O'Malley: I will not deal in detail with the Amendments which the Minister seeks to make affecting the news services of commercial local radio. I agree with what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) and from the Opposition Front Bench. However, I wish to raise one specific point with the Minister which does not affect the news services, and I hope that he will have an opportunity to reply to it.
Hon. Members will notice that Clause 2(5) deals not only with news programmes but with music programmes. The subsection which the Minister seeks to delete says:
…no station shall be authorised to transmit programmes of a predominantly specialised category, whether it be of news or music, supported by advertisements.
I realise that when subsection (5) was inserted in Committee we discussed hardly

at all the subject of a predominantly music service. However, once again the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Proudfoot) and the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst), have said that they envisage commercial radio as basically a service of news backed up by music programmes.
I understand—although I disagree with—the reasons why the Minister wishes to delete subsections (5) and (6) relating primarily to the news services. However, since his hon. Friends who have shown most interest in this matter say that commercial local radio is not predominantly to be a music service, will the Minister look again at the possibility between now and the Bill receiving consideration in another place of inserting another subsection to deal with music as it does at the moment with news? If the Minister were to do that, there would be no risk of commercial radio operators being tempted to have continuous music programmes composed largely of gramophone records which certainly would not be the balanced type of programme which most of us want and which could at the same time have an adverse effect on the type of news programme being broadcast.
If the Minister insists on deleting subsections (5) and (6), I hope that before the Bill goes to another place he will be prepared to consider inserting a specific provision affecting the amount of music programmes which may be broadcast.

Mr. Chataway: I do not believe that any Amendment of that kind is necessary. The authority has an array of duties laid upon it, requiring it to produce a variety of programmes in its services. An Amendment of that kind is not necessary. However, I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications will consider what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Richard: I shall not advise my hon. Friends to vote against the deletion of subsection (5). However, we maintain our opposition to the deletion of subsection (6). I understand that Mr. Speaker agreed that we might have a Division limited purely to the proposal to delete subsection (6).

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 42, leave out subsection (6).—[Mr. Chataway.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made: —

The House divided: Ayes 157, Noes 138.

Division No. 119.]
AYES
[8.5 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Gummer, Selwyn
Parkinson, Cecil


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Gurden, Harold
Percival, Ian


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Astor, John
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Atkins, Humphrey
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Bell, Ronald
Hawkins, Paul
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Redmond, Robert


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Hicks, Robert
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Biffen, John
Holland, Philip
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Hornby, Richard
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Boscawen, Robert
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Rost, Peter


Bowden, Andrew
Hunt, John
Russell, Sir Ronald


Bray, John
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Brinton, Sir Tatton
James, David
Shaw, Michael, (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Jessel, Toby
Skeet, T. H. H.


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N &amp; M)
Jopling, Michael
Soref, Harold


Burden, F. A.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Speed, Keith


Carlisle, Mark
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Spence, John


Chapman, Sydney
Kimball, Marcus
Stainton, Keith


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Kinsey, J. R.
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Clegg, Walter
Kitson, Timothy
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Cockeram, Eric
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Stokes, John


Cooke, Robert
Knox, David
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Cooper, A. E.
Lane, David
Sutcliffe, John


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Le Marchant, Spencer
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Costain, A. P.
Longden, Gilbert
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Crouch, David
Luce, R. N.
Tebbit, Norman


Dean, Paul
MacArthur, Ian
Temple, John M.


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Dixon, Piers
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Eden, Sir John
Mather, Carol
Tilney, John


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Mawby, Ray
Tugendhat, Christopher


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Meyer, Sir Anthony
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Fidler, Michael
Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C.(Aberdeenshire, W)
Waddington, David


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Ward, Dame Irene


Fookes, Miss Janet
Moate, Roger
Warren, Kenneth


Fortescue, Tim
Money, Ernle
Weatherill, Bernard


Fowler, Norman
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Fox, Marcus
Monro, Hector
Winterton, Nicholas


Fry, Peter
More, Jasper
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Gibson-Watt, David
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Woodnutt, Mark


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Mudd, David
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Goodhart, Philip
Neave, Airey



Goodhew, Victor
Normanton, Tom
TELLERS FOR THE AYES: 


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Mr. Oscar Murton and


Gray, Hamish
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Mr. John Stradling Thomas


Green, Alan
Page, Graham (Crosby)



Grieve, Percy
Page, John (Harrow, W.)



Grylls, Michael




NOES


Albu, Austen
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Ewing, Harry


Allen, Scholefield
Concannon, J. D.
Faulds, Andrew


Armstrong, Ernest
Conlan, Bernard
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.


Atkinson, Norman
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Crawshaw, Richard
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Foot, Michael


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Gilbert, Dr. John


Bidwell, Sydney
Deakins, Eric
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)


Bishop, E. S.
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Gourlay, Harry


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Dempsey, James
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Doig, Peter
Grant, John D. (Islington,E.)


Booth Albert
Dormand, J. D.
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Hamling, William


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hardy, Peter


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Dunn, James A.
Harper, Joseph


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Eadie, Alex
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Heffer, Eric S.




Hooson, Emlyn
Millan, Bruce
Skinner, Dennis


Horam, John
Milne, Edward
Small, William


Huckfield, Leslie
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Hunter, Adam
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Spearing, Nigel


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Spriggs, Leslie


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Murray, Ronald King
Stallard, A. W


Kaufman, Gerald
O'Halloran, Michael
Steel, David


Kelley, Richard
O'Malley, Brian
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Kerr, Russell
Orbach, Maurice
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Lambie, David
Oswald, Thomas
Taverne, Dick


Lamond, James
Padley, Walter
Thomas, Jeffrey (Aberlillery)


Lawson, George
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Pendry, Tom
Tinn, James


Loughlin, Charles
Pentland, Norman
Torney, Tom


McElhone, Frank
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg
Tuck, Raphael


McGuire, Michael
Prescott, John
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Mackenzie, Gregor
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Wallace, George


Mackie, John
Price, William (Rugby)
Watkins, David


Maclennan, Robert
Probert, Arthur
Weitzman, David


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Wellbeloved, James


McNamara, J. Kevin
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Whitehead, Phillip


Marks, Kenneth
Richard, Ivor
Whitlock, William


Marsden, F.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Sandelson, Neville
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Mayhew, Christopher
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Woof, Robert


Meacher, Michael
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)



Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES: 


Mendelson, John
Sillars, James
Mr. John Golding and




Mr. James Hamilton.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 3

Local advisory committees for local sound broadcasts

Mr. Golding: I beg to move Amendment No. 17, in page 3, line 14, leave out "advisory" and insert "listener".

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): With this Amendment we are to take the following Amendments:

No. 19, in page 3, line 23, leave out from beginning to end of line 30 and insert:
shall be elected annually by all registered listeners to the local radio station".

No. 24, in line 39, leave out subsection (4) and insert:
(4) No person shall be elected as a member of a local committee if he has any financial interest in any undertaking connected with commercial radio.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Golding: I think that I can cover the point of these Amendments fairly speedily. In Committee we had a long and considerable debate on the subject of the advisory councils. To a certain extent the Advisory Council of the I.T.A. is now being studied by the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries and I think, therefore, that it would help if we were to await the Committee's Report, and not be too dogmatic on the subject.

However, for the purpose of probing again the Minister's intentions I think that it would be better if the advisory committees were called listener committees, in order to make it clear that listeners can make representations on a wide range of subjects. It is important that we change our attitude in this respect. In the nationalised industries generally, consumer councils have been seen as bodies which can make complaints directly to the public bodies which have been given certain functions. It is clear that in broadcasting that relationship does not exist between the consumer body and the public body, which is established merely as an advisory body.

The time has come for us to reconsider that relationship, because it is important that every bureaucracy should be subject to some kind of check and counter-check. This is particularly true of broadcasting where the I.T.A.—and in future the I.B.A.—has to make decisions based on public standards of morality, and so on. It is important that the authority—or, in the case that we are discussing tonight, the radio station managers—should be forced to enter into a dialogue with representatives of the listening public.

It is important to emphasise that, and that is why, in Amendment No. 19, I make the revolutionary proposal that listener committees, as I should like them to be called, should be elected annually by registered listeners to the local radio stations. I think very highly of B.B.C.


local radio but, unfortunately, the situation at present is that the Advisory Council of the B.B.C. consists mainly of people who are worthy in a civic sense but who, because of their dedication to public life, perhaps have less time to listen to radio than have others.

It would be a good thing to have on these listener committees people who, as listeners themselves, have been elected by other listeners, so that there is on them a direct consumer interest representing the views of the public.

We do not see why only the advertisers should be restricted by reference to a financial interest. We want the advice, comments and criticism of listener committees to be absolutely free. They should take into account only the listeners' point of view. This is no place for the commercial interests or the trade unions. It is a place only for the people who would represent the listeners.

The Post Office Users' Council shows how useful and independent an organisation of this kind can be. Whether its recommendations are right or wrong, it can be praised for having initiated discussion. That is what we badly need in communications. One thing that I have discovered in the last few months in which I have taken an interest in this field is how intense is the interest among the communicators in communications and how little interest they have in the world outside. The force of this remark is shown by the vast emptiness of the benches opposite. In this discussion of consumer representation in commercial radio, not one Conservative back-bencher is present. Only the two "Bisto Kids", the Ministers, and the Whip, who is at his duty, are here to listen.

This is an important problem. We need free discussion in the next four or five years on how the public's point of view can be expressed to the communicators.

Mr. Christopher Mayhew: I warmly support my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) in the objectives of his Amendment, which must be generally agreed. I agree that it is the views of the listeners that matter and not necessarily those of organisations such as churches and unions. What puzzles me about the Amendment is why my hon. Friend must assume that the basis of

representing listeners must be indirect election or appointment of people to speak for them.
Does my hon. Friend rule out the idea that the listeners themselves should have the opportunity of putting their views? In the excellent project for local television which the Minister has licensed in my constituency, Greenwich Cablevision, a most promising idea is at the moment holding the field—that the viewer locally should make his views plain, not through representatives, but by attending himself regular meetings which those responsible for the programmes attend, public meetings where the local Press are present and any viewer or listener can comment on the programmes that he has heard or seen, and make his suggestions about future programmes to those directly responsible. Would not my hon. Friend feel that in certain circumstances this has some advantages over the method of election he proposes?

Mr. Golding: Of course that experiment is a most exciting experiment in local television. There is only one difficulty, with which I dealt in Committee. Unfortunately, so many of our people are inarticulate. One of the difficulties in an area such as mine in North Staffordshire is that although there are serious working-class points of view to be put, the people often cannot put them for themselves. A system of representation is needed. But if we could have that together with the proposals of my hon. Friend, that would be very good indeed.

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: I am sure that the whole House is grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) for this opportunity to discuss an important matter. I cannot agree with every one of his comments, but he has aired an important subject.
Those of us who served on the Committee will recall that this subject created a great deal of interest, not least on the benches opposite. I remember particularly the speech of the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Proudfoot) who did not feel that advisory committees were essential at all. He said that the directors were selling this as a commodity in the same way as the grocer sold baked beans and that if people did not like it, they could do something about it.
I have two points to put to the Minister. First, I favour advisory committees and we must in future consider their whole structure. I am not certain that it is best to let the Authority appoint its own committees. Gas and electricity consumer councils tend to become closely identified with the organisation about which they are supposed to be watchdogs. While I cannot accept my hon. Friend's suggestion that these committees should be elected somehow, we have to ensure that in future they are seen to be independent of the Authority and therefore of the individual contractors.
The second point is that when the Minister is looking at these matters in future he should try to find a better way of doing this than to have the Authority consult the various local authorities. I am a former member of a local authority. I come second to none in my praise of and admiration for local authority membership. Those of us who have served on local authorities know the general pattern. It is very simple for Glasgow Corporation, Edinburgh Corporation and Birmingham City Council to consider appointments to advisory committees of this kind. They appoint a number of aldermen or bailies. The number of occasions on which they can attend is determined by the extent of the business to which they are committed to attend in their corporations or councils.
But I am not certain that this is the best way to do it. I do not make a great point of it. I believe in advisory committees. I believe that they should have a significant part to play. However, I am not sure that we are giving them the status they need by having the Authority appoint them. I think that we should look at these matters in future.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. James Dempsey: As one who formerly served on one of these councils which we are discussing, I think that there is a definite need for some form of listeners' council. I am not sure that I have the computation as to who should be represented on that particular body, whether it be associations or individuals. However, I know that there is a need for the listeners to have some say in the types of broadcast they are to receive.
Following the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie), I should point out that for many years I represented local authorities in Scotland on the Scottish Schools Broadcasting Council. I think that it did a very good job. It was a specialised duty. The purpose of that council was to advise on the type of programme suitable for schools. I had experience of working alongside directors of education, trade unionists and ministers of religion, who all made satisfactory contributions towards the success of that council.
However, when dealing with commercial broadcasting, I am sure that we shall have Navy Larks, Saturday Night Theatres, Any Questions and programmes where people can telephone in ideas and suggestions and discuss problems. In all these matters the listeners are entitled to some consideration. The weakness of television in this country is that there is no viewers' council. Viewers have a vested interest in this mass media. Similarly with broadcasting, whether it be the B.B.C. or commercial radio.
Is the Minister satisfied that these proposals go far enough to meet the true needs of radio listeners? Is he convinced that he is providing for the right type of person who is a regular listener to radio?
Most people make the great mistake of keeping television going all the time. I assure them that they are missing some excellent radio programmes as a result. I am a regular listener to radio and, to a limited extent, a viewer of television. I assure the House that when I see some of the most unattractive programmes as I am passing through my apartment where television is being viewed, I feel sorry for the viewers, because, as a result of that distraction, they are forgetting about radio and overlooking the value of the excellent programmes we receive from day to day and night to night.
I am concerned about the Minister's proposals. Is he convinced that he has got to the grass roots of radio listening? I do not think so. I do not know how my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) suggests that the body about which he is talking should be elected. I do not know how it will be organised. It must be a tremendously comprehensive organisation of listeners who no longer pay


licence fees, but just cast votes on some elected council. It is not practicable. I agree that the Minister has the necessary ability and experience to realise that if the council is to be a success, it must consist of listeners. He must get down to the grass roots—to those who listen regularly and enjoy radio programmes.
We accept that specialised programmes such as school broadcasts require specialists to advise on them, but for the general run of broadcasting, though some of it is instructional—a great deal is entertaining while some is monotonous—we need advice from a wide section of the population. The people chosen should be adherents to radio. What system of recruiting to these committees will be adopted?

Mr. Chataway: The Amendment has given hon. Members an opportunity to discuss the rôle of the advisory committees and some hon. Members have proferred advice. It has been advice which the Authority will welcome because it will have to appoint these committees.
I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) about the importance of these committees being representative of listeners so that they can get down to the grass roots of the matter. However, I do not feel that it would necessarily be advantageous to change the title to include "listener" as distinct from "advisory". They will have the task of evaluating information as well as simply being listeners, though one hopes that they will be steady listeners. I therefore feel that "advisory" should be in the title because their task will be to advise as well as to listen.
There would be difficulties in arranging the sort of elections that have been described. Who would be a registered elector and how would the exercise be organised? Many similar difficult questions arise and the suggestion assumes an interest greater than exists, for I do not feel that people would be prepared to go to the polls to elect a body of this sort.
On the question of financial interest, the Authority will be required to take this point into account and not appoint anyone whose judgment would be likely to be distorted by a financial interest. There might, however, be a very small

and remote financial connection which the Authority might feel would not disqualify an otherwise suitable person from giving good advice.
While we welcome this opportunity to discuss this matter, I hope that the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) will not press the Amendment to a Division.

Mr. Dempsey: I am still not sure how the Minister intends to ensure that the people who are appointed will come from the grass roots of radio, so to speak. Could he send out a questionnaire which keen radio listeners could complete so that, if their interests and qualifications are suitable, they could be appointed?

Mr. Chataway: It will be for the Authority to make these appointments and I am sure that it will take the hon. Gentleman's suggestion into account.

Mr. Golding: In the hope that the Authority will take great care in the appointment of people to the new advisory committees—more care than may have been taken in the past with the Advisory Council—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Golding: I beg to move Amendment No. 27, in page 3, line 44, after 'advertising', insert:
'or in any other enterprise or business'.
In Committee the Minister said that he might have second thoughts on this matter. Has he had them and, if so, what are they?

Mr. Chataway: The Amendment widens the prohibition of people serving on local advisory committees to anyone with a financial interest in any undertaking connected with commercial radio. I think that that goes too wide. It would needlessly disqualify many people who would be able to give valuable and disinterested service to the committees.
The Government have considered this matter carefully. The Government's view is that statutory restrictions of this sort really should be kept at the minimum. The Authority will take steps to ensure that it does not appoint people who, for whatever reason, are unlikely to be able to serve satisfactorily. Therefore, I hope the hon. Gentleman will recognise that


this is a matter which the Authority can deal with and that the addition of these words would not add much.

Mr. Golding: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Chataway: I beg to move, Amendment No. 34, in page 4, line 27, after 'county', insert 'county of a'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): With this Amendment it would be convenient to discuss Amendment No. 35.

Mr. Chataway: This is purely a drafting Amendment. It simply provides for the correct statutory term for "county of a city" in Scotland to be used in the definition of the appropriate local authorities for the purposes of subsection (3), the subsection which requires the Authority to invite local authorities to suggest appointments to the local advisory committees.
I promised in Committee on 25th January to look into a point made by the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) about the definition of local authorities in Clause 3(6) as it applied to Northern Ireland. He pointed out then that the definition was narrower for Northern Irish local authorities than it was for English ones. I am grateful to the hon. Member. He was quite correct. The Amendment widens the specification in Clause 3(6) so as to bring the two into line.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made, No. 35 in page 4, leave out lines 28 and 29 and insert:
(c) in relation to Northern Ireland, means any of the following, that is to say, the council of a county, county or other borough, or urban or rural district, a new town or development commission exercising the functions of any such council and a district council within the meaning of the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 1972.—[Mr. Chataway.]

Clause 5

RENTAL PAYMENTS BY SOUND PROGRAMME CONTRACTORS

Mr. Chataway: I beg to move. Amendment No. 42, in page 5, line 28, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert:

(1) Where, before the beginning of a financial year, it appears to the Minister, after consultation with the Authority, to be appropriate to do so, having regard—
(a) to the amount which (after making due provision towards or for capital expenditure required for the proper discharge, in relation to local sound broadcasting services, of the duties of the Authority under section 1(3) and (4) of the principal Act) is likely to be the amount of the relevant expenditure for that year, and
(b) to the need for securing that excessive profits do not accrue to programme contractors under contracts for the provision of local sound broadcasts,
the Minister, with the consent of the Treasury, may before the beginning of that year make an order under this subsection in respect of that financial year.
(2) Any such order made in respect of a financial year shall specify an amount (in this subsection referred to as 'the specified amount') by which the relevant revenues for that year ought to exceed the relevant expenditure for that year, and shall require the Authority—
(a) to determine what aggregate amount of relevant revenues for that year they regard as necessary to ensure that those revenues exceed the relevant expenditure by the specified amount;
(b) to determine, in the case of each programme contractor with whom the Authority enter into a contract for the provision of local sound broadcasts, what amount in the opinion of the Authority represents his appropriate contribution for that year towards meeting that aggregate amount;
(c) so to exercise their powers under their contract with each such programme contractor as to ensure that the payments, made for that year by that contractor are not less than the amount so determined as representing his appropriate contribution, or (if there are circumstances which in the opinion of the Authority make it impracticable for those payments to be equal to the amount so determined) are as near to that amount as in the opinion of the Authority those circumstances permit; and
(d) to pay into the Consolidated Fund for that year a sum equal to the specified amount or to the amount by which the relevant revenues for that year exceed the relevant expenditure, whichever is the lesser amount.
(3) Any order made under subsection (1) of this section in respect of a financial year may, by a further order made by the Minister after consultation with the Authority and with the consent of the Treasury,—
(a) be revoked, or
(b) be varied by substituting a lesser amount for the amount specified in that order.
and any such further order may be made either before or after the beginning of the financial year to which it relates.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): With this Amendment it would be convenient to discuss Amendments Nos. 46, 47, 48, 49 and 51.

Mr. Chataway: This is a very large number of Amendments covering a good many lines. Some of them have some importance. As those who served on the Committee will recollect, the Clause is designed to ensure that if the commercial radio stations reach a situation in which they are making excessive profits, the community should have some share in them. It provides for the Government to set a target for the Authority. It would mean that the Authority would have to provide a contribution to the Consolidated Fund for any financial year.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) was extremely anxious in Committee that we should not have a situation in which the Government of the day would start to scoop off the excess revenue from the system before the system had had the chance to extend to the full. He was anxious to ensure that we should provide that it would be the Minister's duty to ensure as best he could that before any money was taken out of the system the frequencies should be fully used, that there should be as big a spread of the service as possible over the country and that where possible there should be second stations in towns. Amendment No. 42 seeks to meet my hon. Friends point in that regard.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Gorst: Exactly where is the provision in Amendment No 42? The two specific points of competition and completion of the coverage do not appear to be mentioned in the wording of the Amendment.

Mr. Chataway: Subsection 1(a) requires the Minister, in considering whether to set a financial target, to have regard to the Authority's duties
under sections 1(3) and (4) of the principal Act".
That has the effect my hon. Friend wishes, because under those subsections the Authority is required to ensure that its services reach as much of the United Kingdom as may from time to time be reasonably practical. The effect is, there-

fore, to require the Minister to have regard to the fullest use of the frequencies that are available; and, before he sets a target and takes money away for the Consolidated Fund, he should bear in mind the desirability of extending the system and providing second stations where possible.
The effect of Amendment No. 46 is to bring the wording of the requirement on the Authority to make sure in its contracts that target payments are produced by contractors into line with the word "ensure" used in Section 14 of the Television Act, 1964, for the similar requirement to ensure that levy payments are forthcoming. It was felt by the Authority that it might be held that the different wording produced a different connotation. We have therefore brought it into line.
Amendment No. 47 merely makes a drafting change. The effect of Amendment No. 48 is to repeat the substance of the words to be left out but with consequential drafting changes.
Amendment No. 49 is, again, a drafting Amendment consequential on the proposed replacement of the old subsection (1) and paragraph (a) of it by a new subsection (1) of which paragraph (a) is about something quite different.
The effect of Amendment No. 51 is to provide that any order setting a target or revoking or reducing a target once set shall be made by Statutory Instrument under the affirmative Resolution procedure. This obviously is an Amendment to which I ought particularly to draw the attention of the House. My hon. Friends the Members for Sevenoaks (Sir J. Rodgers), and for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills), and others suggested on Second Reading that it would be right, before a measure of this kind were taken by the Government, that it should be brought before Parliament—that is following the same procedure as in the operation of the levy in relation to television. I hope that it will be acceptable to the House and seem reasonable that we should effect that change to Clause 5.
I do not think that there will be a great deal of argument about the principle of the Clause as a whole. Some of my hon. Friends had reservations, I know, but the fact is that, when commercial television started to make very


large profits through the use of scarce frequencies, the Public Accounts Committee called for some sort of levy. It was felt on both sides of the House that it was only right that some contribution should be made and that society as a whole should have a larger share in the profits which were accruing.
Plainly, commercial radio will not reach a similar situation in the years immediately ahead, but it seems only right that, should it ever do so, there should be some back-stop provision of this kind.
I hope that the House will accept the Amendments.

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: The right hon. Gentleman has promised that there will be a review fairly soon of the whole system of levy in television. It would be right if, at this stage, he told us how he sees the two tying together, and whether action will be taken in the near future.

Mr. Chataway: I do not think that there would necessarily be similar systems at this stage in radio and in television. Without going into the differences which may prevail—I should probably stray out of order if I did—I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the possibility of alternatives to the levy in television has received considerable study, and proposals have been put to me by the Authority. I know that my right hon. Friend will be considering this matter in the weeks immediately ahead.

Mr. Golding: We are much obliged for the work which the draftsman has done in the past few weeks, and we are grateful to the Minister for introducing the affirmative Resolution procedure in this case. Both sides of the House greatly welcome that.
I have one reservation to express on Amendment No. 42. It is possible for the targets set to be waived and for the Minister, after consultation with the Authority, and with the consent of the Treasury, to revoke an order or to vary an order by substituting a lower figure, the reference here being always to specific years.
It is apparent from the record of the television companies that advertising revenue and profits are cyclical, and it may be found that profits are cyclical in commercial radio, too. I suggest that it

would be better in the future, after 1976, if any such provision as this were related to a period longer than one year.
It is possible to set a target for one period of 12 months and for that target not to be reached. The next 12 months may be a bumper year, but the experience of the previous year may well have persuaded one that a lower target figure is appropriate. In such circumstances, there is no way of recoupment.
It is clear from the experience of commercial television over the past few months that the annual provision, while it may be convenient for Treasury accounting, does not take account of the true nature of the business. However, we do not wish to press that point now.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 46, in page 6, line 17, leave out 'secure' and insert 'ensure'.

No. 47, in page 6, line 18, leave out 'direction given under subsection (1) of and insert 'order made under'.

No. 48, in page 6, leave out lines 25 to 32 and insert:
'to furnish to the Minister such information as he may require for the purpose of determining at any time—
(a) whether an order should be made under subsection (1) or subsection (2) of this section, and
(b) in the case of an order to be made under subsection (1) or subsection (3)(b) of this section, what amount should be specified in the order,
and for enabling the Authority to comply with any order made under this section'.

No. 49, in page 6, line 35, leave out 'as mentioned in paragraph (a) of' and insert 'for any such purpose as is mentioned in'.

No. 51, in page 6, line 45, at end insert:
(6) Any power to make an order under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument; and no such order shall be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(7) In this section 'the relevant expenditure', in relation to any financial year, means the aggregate of the sums which, for the purposes of the branch of the Authority's undertaking which consists of the provision of local sound broadcasting services, are required in respect of that year—
(a) to meet all such sums as are mentioned in subsection (2)(a) of section 20A of the principal Act, and


(b) to make such provision towards or for capital expenditure as the Authority propose to make as mentioned in subsection (2)(b) of that section,
And 'relevant revenues', in relation to any financial year, means revenues of the Authority for that year which are attributable to that branch of their undertaking.—[Mr. Chataway.]

Clause 6

PRESERVATION OF INDEPENDENCE OF BROADCASTING CONTRACTORS

Mr. Chataway: I beg to move Amendment No. 52, in page 7, line 2, leave out from 'programmes' to 'there' in line 12 and insert:
'the following subsections shall be substituted for subsection (2): —

"(1A) The Authority shall not enter into any contract with a programme contractor whereby (whether by virtue of that contract alone or by virtue of that contract together with one or more other contracts) the contractor is to provide television programmes for an area and is to provide local sound broadcasts for reception in a locality which, in the opinion of the Authority, is comprised in that area.
(2) It shall be the duty of the Authority to do all that they can to secure—

(a) that persons who are disqualified persons as defined in subsection (3) or subsection (3A) of this section do not become or continue as programme con tractors, either alone or in partnership with other persons, and
(b) that there is adequate competition to supply programmes between a number of programme contractors independent of each other both as to finance and as to control."

(2) After subsection (2) of that section'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): It will be for the convenience of the House to discuss at the same time Amendment No. 53, in

page 7, line 8, leave out subsection (2).

and Amendment No. 65, in

page 13, column 3 [Schedule 2], leave out lines 29 to 33.

Mr. Chataway: Amendment No. 52 is basically a drafting Amendment which plugs an unintentional gap to which my attention was drawn in the part of Clause 6 which provides against the overlapping of interests in sound and television broadcasting in the same area by a single contractor. Although the existing wording is adequate to exclude the television programme contractor from gaining control over a sound broadcasting contractor

in the same area, or vice versa, it is not adequate to prevent a single person from contracting to fulfil both television and sound functions at the same time in the same area.
The redraft simply takes care of the point and also tidies up the Clause in other respects. The deletion of lines 29 to 33 of Schedule 2 in Amendment No. 65 is simply consequential upon this tidying up.
I know my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) expressed an anxiety about this. The original purpose as spelt out in the White Paper and, as I thought, given effect in the Bill, was to ensure that no television contractor should have control of a radio company within his own area. The Amendment now ensures that this intention will be carried out.

Mr. Gorst: In spite of what my right hon. Friend has said about the wording being solely of a drafting nature, I would ask him to look carefully before the Bill is enacted to see whether any other interpretation could be put on these words. In spite of what he says, when the Amendment says that
The Authority shall not enter into any contract with a programme contractor whereby…the contractor is to provide television programmes for an area and is to provide local sound broadcasts for reception in a locality which…is comprised in that area
it means that no programme can be produced by that television contractor. Perhaps my right hon. Friend does not agree with my interpretation of it, but I fear that if it were ever to come before the courts they might make a different interpretation from my right hon. Friend. Therefore, I should like a specific assurance that if it is found on careful examination that such an interpretation could be put on it it will not be allowed to proceed with that interpretation.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Chataway: I am very happy to give my hon. Friend the assurance that my right hon. Friend will look at that. The provision is that the Authority shall not enter into any contract with a programme contractor who is supplying both television and sound broadcasts. It simply talks about the contract between the Authority and the contractor, and


could only mean that the Authority will not have the same company or person as the contractor for radio and the contractor for television in the same area. But since my hon. Friend has that anxiety, I give him the assurance that the provision will be checked to ensure that the interpretation I have given is right.

Mr. Golding: My Amendment, No. 53, is purely probing. We have been told that the Birmingham Post has a share in A.T.V. If a commercial radio station is established in the A.T.V. area, can the Birmingham Post buy into that station?

Mr. Chataway: It might be able to, because the prohibition in the Clause is simply that a television contractor in an area shall not have a controlling interest in any radio company, which is what has been envisaged throughout. Control can amount to a great deal less than a 50 per cent. stake in the sense of who is effectively in charge. That is the nature of the limitation in the Clause.

Mr. Golding: I ask the right hon. Gentleman to move away from the question of control. We have recently discovered that a great deal of control in television is exercised through multiple ownership, the holding of nominee shares and the like. I ask the new Minister to think not of the doctrine of control but of the doctrine of undue influence. Many of us will be very dissatisfied if television, local radio and the Press in the Midlands can all come under the undue influence of one group. It would be healthier if television, radio and the Press were separate and competing, if they were truly alternative avenues of communication.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Chataway: I beg to move Amendment No. 56, in page 7, line 48, leave out from 'which' to 'or' in line 3 on page 8 and insert:
'(either wholly, or to an extent which in the opinion of the Authority is substantial)—
(a) consists of the manufacture of records or of the publication of musical works, or
(b) consists of promoting the broadcasting of sound recordings or of promoting the broadcasting or performance of musical works, or
(c) consists of obtaining employment for theatrical performers or for persons to take

part as performers in programmes broadcast (whether by the Authority or otherwise) by way of television or sound broadcasting'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think it will be for the convenience of the House to discuss at the same time Amendment No. 57, in page 8, line 3, after 'works', insert:
'or in any similar or related enterprise'.
and Government Amendment No. 58.

Mr. Chataway: There was a very lively debate in Committee on a number of Amendments the purpose of which was to add to the disqualifications from becoming a programme contractor. Perhaps I may briefly repeat the classification of people I then gave who I thought should be disqualified. I said that if we identified a class which was not already disqualified and which was of substantial importance it should be included in the local radio disqualification, but that if the class was of fairly small importance, or if there was a doubt about whether it should necessarily be disqualified, it would be better not to list it in the Bill but to leave it to the Authority. The reason was that we would not in any case be providing an exhaustive list. There would be large numbers of people whom the Authority would, for a variety of reasons, not regard as suitable to become programme contractors.
The point I was making was that it would be wrong to give the impression by appearing to have constructed a list that anyone not on it would naturally be suitable. With these criteria in mind, I felt unable to accept a number of Amendments in Committee but there were two classes of people, it seemed to me on the representations of the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) and others, who were not at present excluded but should be. They are what I referred to as record-pluggers and agents of singers.
It would be undesirable if an individual whose occupation it was to persuade broadcasters to play particular records or the records of a particular manufacturer, could become a programme contractor. It might be assumed that he would himself perform those records not primarily because they were good programme material for the listener, but because they were good business for the programme contractor.
The question of agents of singers has been looked at much more carefully since


the debate in Committee, and I have concluded that the agents of singers cannot really be distinguished from agents of any other kinds of performers who may broadcast for local sound radio. Any agent plugging such a performer might seem to prefer performers of his own choice to performers of rival agents.
These two Amendments should meet the objections which I have mentioned and I think they broadly meet the wishes of hon. Members expressed in Committee.

Mr. Richard: We are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. The Amendments are the results of points made in Committee which were substantial, and we are grateful that he has found himself able to meet them.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 58, in page 8, leave out lines 10 to 20 and insert:
(a) 'record' and 'sound recording' have the same meanings as in the Copyright Act 1956, and references to the publication, broadcasting or performance of musical works shall be construed as if they were contained in that Act; and
(b) 'theatrical performer' has the same meaning as in the Theatrical Employers Registration Act 1925.—[Mr. Chataway.]

Orders of the Day — Schedule 1

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS OF TELEVISION ACT 1964

Mr. Chataway: I beg to move Amendment No. 62, in page 11, line 42, column 2 after 'Authority', insert
'in the first place where it occurs'.
The word "Authority" occurs twice in Section 13(1)(a) of the Television Act. The Amendment is simply to clear up an ambiguity which arose from that fact. I can assure the House that with this last deft touch the Bill is in perfect condition.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 64, in page 13, line 1, column 2 after '(1)' insert:
'before the definition of "broadcast relay station" there shall be inserted the words"'associate' in relation to a body corporate (including a programme contractor which is a body corporate) means a body corporate which is a member of the same group as that body corporate; and for this purpose any two bodies corporate are to be treated as members of the same group if one of them is a body

corporate of which the other is a subsidiary (within the meaning of section 154 of the Companies Act 1948) or if both of them are subsidiaries (within the meaning of that section) of one and the same body corporate" and'.—[Mr. Chataway.]

Orders of the Day — Schedule 2

ENACTMENTS REPEALED

Amendment made: No. 65, in page 13, column 3 leave out lines 29 to 33.—[Mr. Chataway.]

9.9 p.m.

Mr. Chataway: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Over many weeks we have given to this Bill fairly exhaustive consideration—

Mr. Golding: No.

Mr. Chataway: —and I should like to thank those who have applied their minds to the issues involved. I suppose that it would probably be accepted by some of those who served on the Committee that, while the company was extremely congenial, it was perhaps not the most gripping Parliamentary occasion in which they had been involved, and it may be that during consideration of the Bill we have been forced to consider rather too many minor matters. If that is so, it is perhaps because there has been no real clash on principle since Second Reading.
I know that the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) is opposed to all commercial broadcasting. He does not like advertising on television or radio. But that has not been the position adopted by his hon. Friends, and we have come to understand that they favour commercial radio—not only commercial television but comercial radio. They have been anxious to make small Amendments here and there, but, broadly speaking, they have taken the view that they would not wish to be committed against commercial radio. Therefore, in the discussions which we have had it has not been a question of principle, or, indeed, of any fundamental change in what we have proposed, which we have been discussing, but rather Amendments of lesser interest. If, therefore, as I know was the case, the interest of some of my hon. Friends flagged after about the sixtieth hour of our discussions in Committee, that may have been because


there was that lack of any large issue about which to argue.
None the less, it has been a source of satisfaction to many of us to see that the principle of competition in radio has come to be accepted. I think that people in all parts of the country will recognise that there is value in a diversity of sources. We have spent a large part of today discussing anxieties that there might be too great a concentration in certain hands of control of the new medium. That is a point of view which I can understand. I believe that by the provisions we have made in this Bill we have ensured that there will not be vested in any hands too large a control of any part of commercial radio.
We have ensured, for example, that no newspaper with a monopoly in an area should have control of the local radio station in that area. We have given to the Authority the power to take action if it believes that it could be against the public interest for a newspaper to have a holding in a station. We have inserted provisions which make it absolutely clear that the Authority has a duty to see that no group of any kind has too large a share of the total equity. In all these respects we have in the Bill sought to ensure that there will be a large number of people involved in the control of this new medium and that it will not be concentrated into a few hands.
I am bound to say that I think that criticism on this score would come oddly from anybody who still believes in monopoly in radio. If there were anybody—I believe there are one or two in this House—who still believes that the right arrangement for radio is to have it controlled by a monopoly, it would be strange indeed for him to be complaining because now, in breaking that monopoly, we were not spreading the ownership far enough.
During today's proceedings and on previous occasions we have discussed the likely programming of the companies. I believe that there is a substantial opportunity for those who will be moving into independent radio.
There is some evidence that in this country at the moment the listening fig-

ures, by international standards, are not particularly high.
The British listener on average listens for about eight hours a week. In several other countries where there is competition the listening figures are a great deal higher. There is every reason to believe that, with competition and new ideas people will make greater use of their radios and that radio listening figures may increase. In several countries over the past decade there has been a steady swing back to radio and a steady increase in radio listening figures. There is evidence that the younger generation is less exclusively addicted to television. There are substantial opportunities for the new radio service.
We have returned again and again during our discussions to the number of stations which is desirable and the scope of each station. A diversity of views has been expresssed. The hon. and learned Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) has made it clear that he would like national commercial radio. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) by contrast has said that he would like many small stations, and that view is shared by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) and to a great extent by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Proudfoot).
There is some element of confusion here, some of it no doubt deliberately generated. When hon. Members portray the provisions of the Bill and the plans of the Authority as being for regional rather than local radio they are ignoring the fact that the size of the stations is bound to vary. Stations which cater for a community are bound to cover areas of greatly varying size. Under the plans which I have described, the Authority will provide two stations in London which will cover the Great London area. At the other extreme the Authority will have the opportunity to provide stations for communities with populations as small as 100,000. There is thus a substantial spread. That is inevitable, unless one takes the view that large towns and conurbations should have a radio station capable not of transmitting to the whole town but to only part of it. In that way there could be a succession of very small stations, but they would not correspond


to community interest. Hence, the diversity in size.
The Authority has the opportunity to provide up to 60 radio stations. It remains to be seen how small a community the Authority can reach and survive. Here there are conflicting views, and this can only be tested in practice. There are those who believe that a station catering for a population of 400,000 will have the greatest difficulty in surviving. By contrast there are those like my hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough who believe that very small communities with a population of 100,000 could sustain four or five radio stations. The extent to which the system spreads will depend upon its acceptability. It will have to win listeners and show that it is providing a service to which people want to listen.
What are the prospects beyond the 60 stations? Clearly it will not be for ever necessary to duplicate on medium frequencies and on v.h.f. At that moment there will be the opportunity for twice as many stations. We can look beyond the next few years to the opportunity of providing in terms of the B.B.C. and I.B.A. a greater number of local stations if it transpires to be a service of growing popularity.
There are those who believe that we shall see in Europe, as has happened in North America, some movement away from the provision of national services to local services. It is true that radio is extremely well equipped to meet many of the local demands. It is a flexible and quick medium of communication and is relatively cheap. Therefore, there is a good case for believing that radio can make a substantial contribution to the local community.
There has also been continuing discussion about the kind of programmes which hon. Gentlemen would like to see transmitted on these stations. The hon. and learned Member for Barons Court at one time seemed to be arguing that Parliament should lay down in detail exactly what kind of records were to be played. When the Bill was first announced he threw up his hands in horror and said that they would all be pop stations. He forgot that the dominant influence at the

moment in radio is Radio 1. Some 45 per cent. of listeners tune in to Radio 1 which concentrates almost exclusively on pop records interlaced with talk from disc jockeys. A further 35 per cent. listen to Radio 2, which concentrates largely on sweet music.
Popular music is bound to play a substantial part in radio of this kind. It is surely no function of either the hon. and learned Gentleman or the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) to lay down that it should not do so. There is an opportunity for this new service to harness popular programming of this kind to a social purpose. In the North American continent are a large number of local stations which have a wide appeal and involve their listeners in the community. This is what radio can do. I hope that these stations, popular in their appeal and carrying popular music, will also carry a great deal of local information and will be able to involve large numbers of people to a greater extent in their local affairs.
I should like to refer to the provision of an alternative news service. We have discussed—I will not go over this ground again—the exact form in which that news service is to be provided. It will be widely accepted that there are tremendous advantages in broadcasting in having more than one sort of news and current affairs. Few people would wish to restore the monopoly in television. The fact that we are now providing an alternative source in radio will be welcome to the people who work in radio. It makes a great deal of difference to have more than one employer, however much or little one may think of that employer. But to have more than one source of news and current affairs in a medium such as this is a considerable gain.
I am glad that the arguments of principle about commercial radio appear to be finished. I fear that according to what now seems to be the established practice, the Opposition, after some hon. Members opposite declaring that they are in favour and some that they are against, will all vote against it. None the less, the measure of consent that the Bill has achieved is a source of satisfaction. I believe that it will be a considerable stimulus to radio services in this country.

9.25 p.m.

Mr. Richard: I am happy to take up one point made by the right hon. Gentleman and that is to join him in paying tribute to those hon. Members on both sides who sat through the Committee stage. It was a unique Committee for a number of reasons. The first was that it was a very small Committee. The Government had eleven Members and we had nine.
Secondly, I did some calculations and discovered that on a Bill which originally had eight Clauses, we commenced the Committee stage on 25th November, 1971, and finished it on 7th March, 1972. We had 34 sittings. Taking an average of two and a half hours per sitting, we spent 84 hours discussing the Bill. I worked that out at approximately 670,320 words, which is about two-thirds the length of" War and Peace"—

Mr. Golding: We failed.

Mr. Richard: Yes, we failed. Tolstoy beat us. But it must be admitted that he was not considering quite such a petty Measure as this Bill.
The other unique feature of the Bill was that throughout the whole of the 34 sittings, the 84 hours and the, 670,320 words, the only members of the Committee supporting the Bill were the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price), who was his junior Minister. Contributions from hon. Members opposite were rare, save only for two honourable exceptions—

Mr. Golding: Three.

Mr. Richard: Two mainly and the third occasionally. The hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Proudfoot) and the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) know what this Bill is about. They know why they do not like it and why they oppose it. Throughout the whole Committee stage, the only supporter that the right hon. Gentleman had for the Bill was his junior Minister. There must have been occasions when the Minister felt something of the way that I felt on one occasion when I was canvassing in my constituency. I knocked on a door. A sweet old lady answered it and I said, "Good morning, madam. My name is Ivor Richard. I am the Labour candidate for

this constituency. Can I rely upon your vote on polling day?" She smiled sweetly and replied, "Vote? Oh, I never vote. It only encourages them".
From time to time, it must have struck the Minister that whenever he got to his feet to say something about the Bill, even if it was meant to be helpful, all that it did was to encourage hon. Members on both sides of the Committee who found themselves in opposition. I think that the high spot was reached this evening when, after a concession from the Minister, one of my hon. Friends spoke for 27 minutes in opposition to it.
The Minister also said that there was a certain degree of confusion about the Bill. I agree with him entirely. The longer that we spent on it and the more that we went into it, the greater the confusion grew. It was noteworthy that throughout the whole Committee stage little was done to dispel the confusion. Even this evening we attempted to discuss the relationship between the newspaper provisions in new Clauses 1 and 2 and the London news station, and it was impossible to dispel the confusion which arose in the mind of anyone considering the matter.
The Bill emerged from the whole affair somewhat battered. It is a different affair now from those proud days so many months ago when the Minister stood at the Dispatch Box and, flushed with his new-found patronage, produced the White Paper and told us how it would reinvigorate local communities, how the local butcher would be able to rush off to his local radio station and say that his sausages were 3pa pound cheaper. That would go out hot over the air and as a result all the housewives in this small, mythical town, served by this mythical radio station, would rush to the mythical supermarket and pay a cheaper price for the local sausages, no doubt produced carefully by hand by the local butcher in his own local butchery—

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: From locally bred pigs.

Mr. Richard: As my hon. Friend says, from locally bred pigs.
Gone are the days when there was talk about reinvigorating local communities. We are left, not with local commercial radio, but with half-baked, semi-illegitimate local regional radio.

Mr. Chataway: Nonsense.

Mr. Richard: The Minister says "Nonsense". but the first five stations will be, two in London, one in Manchester, one in Birmingham and one in Glasgow, and the time that it will take to get down to local radio in the picturesque mythical town which Lord Eccles, the Paymaster-General, had very much in mind months ago when the White Paper was brought in will be longer than the tenure not only of the Minister in his present position, but even in his new-found position, and his successor in both of them.

Mr. Chataway: I wonder whether, even at this late hour, the hon. and learned Gentleman would clarify his position. He is in favour of local commercial radio, but he objects to what we are providing because it is not local enough. Does he, in these large towns, want to see small stations which do not cover the whole town so that they will be, not regional, but local? What exactly is the hon. and learned Gentleman's objection to these five stations which he calls regional, which cover these large towns?

Mr. Richard: I am concerned, as I have been ever since I entered politics, at the honesty of the Conservative Party's claim. Unlike some hon. Gentlemen opposite, I read the Conservative Party's Manifesto at election times. The hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough said that he never read the manifesto, nor did he think that anybody else did. He said that he had it available in the office should anybody ask for it, but nobody ever did at any election that he fought.

Mr. Proudfoot: The hon. and learned Gentleman does me an injustice. I said that party manifestoes were well upholstered and that I read them all.

Mr. Richard: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman and I read everything that is put out officially at election time. When one looks at what the Conservative Party said in its manifesto about commercial radio and compare it with what the right hon. Gentleman claimed for it in those early, far-off halcyon days when he first came in flushed with the enthusiasm of his new-found office about reinvigorating local communities, all of which would have their pet radio stations; when one looks at the claim and compares it with the reality, one realises that

if ever there were a false prospectus, which has been proven false by what has emerged during the last 18 months, that was it. We do not, under the Bill, have local commercial radio. Let us be clear about what we are being offered. We are being offered regional commercial radio, and not local commercial radio.
It has become clear as the weeks have ground on that all the initial fears which the Opposition expressed during the White Paper debate and on Second Reading were justified. May I make three points which are as valid now as they were when they were first made? During the debate on the White Paper we said that the Bill was merely a legislative framework giving a massive discretion to the I.T.A., to be renamed the I.B.A. I said that then, and I asked the Minister whether he would be prepared to give us some details about the way in which he and the Authority saw the operation of commercial radio, how it was going to work, and so on. The ideas about commercial radio which the hon. Members for Brighouse and Spenborough, and Hendon, North have are totally different from Ministers' ideas. I thought that those were sensible and rational questions to ask, and many people asked them at the time. Having asked them. I had hoped for answers, but we have gone on asking and hoping, and even today, on Third Reading, we do not know how this Measure is to be operated.
Second, we were intially unhappy about newspaper participation. After the last two days, let alone what happened in Committee, I am very unhappy about these Clauses. Our fears are as justified now as they were then.
Third, we are still not convinced that these proposals are the best possible use of the wavelengths which may become available. Fourth, we are still worried about the dichotomy between the need to maintain standards, which the I.B.A. will have to do, and the inevitable commercial pressures to maximise audiences which will be pressures to bring standards down.
It is therefore quite impossible for the Opposition to vote for the Third Reading of the Bill. There are serious deficiencies in it. We have serious doubts not only about the details of the Bill but about its timing and its wisdom. We would have much preferred this whole


matter to be left over until the inquiry had considered and reported. For these reasons, I shall be advising my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the Third Reading.
This is perhaps a unique occasion. If the incoming Minister will forgive me for using the phrase, it is unique in that both the Minister in charge of the Bill and the Opposition spokesman are what are known in American as "lame ducks". There is a gap between the elected President coming in and the previous President leaving the White House. That slight hiatus is known as the lame-duck period. It may be wholly appropriate that this Bill should be dealt with by two lame ducks—the Minister and myself.

9.37 p.m.

Mr. Gorst: For one who has spent well over a decade pressing for the introduction of commercial local radio, this is more than the end of "War and Peace". However, I hope that, when it is eventually published, it will not be full of quite as much verbiage as the hon. and learned Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) has said was expended on it during our discussions.
I want to tell the Minister how much his courtesy, patience and tolerance to those of us who have not at all stages seen eye to eye with him has been appreciated. It is only fair, since so much has been said by some of us on this side which is not entirely favourable to the Bill, for one to rehearse at least some of the main virtues which must be remembered if we are to be fair to the whole project.
First, the Bill will increase the amount of choice available to listeners. Second, it will give an influence over the medium of radio to the provinces. Unfortunately, of course, it gives that influence in mammoth dollops to regional stations—by my definition, anyhow—whereas many of us would have preferred it to be in small driblets to very local stations. However, the third and perhaps equally important quality of the Bill is that it breaks the B.B.C.'s monopoly, about fifty years late. These are wholly advantageous results of the Bill.
I would not go so far as to say that there are not other ways of doing this job,

but I hope that it will be possible in due course to regard this as a tentative first exploratory step with the stations which are set up, which will be followed rapidly, during the review which will undoubtedly be taking place before 1976, by some of the improvements which it may still be possible to include.
On the other hand, while it is bound to increase listening—I agree with my right hon. Friend in this—there are still important defects in it. I have already said that it is regional rather than local. Despite what my right hon. Friend said about competition between local stations and B.B.C. stations, there will not be competition, except in London, between the commercial stations. This is more important that competition with the B.B.C, because, in the view of many hon. Members on this side of the House, it is important for commercial undertakings to be in competition with one another, but for the B.B.C. to complement and augment what commercial undertakings do not and perhaps cannot of their very nature do.
Despite the assurances which have been written into the Bill, still far too much Press and other media of communication influence will creep into the service when it is set up.
It is unfortunate that the Bill gives to the I.T.A., in the form of the I.B.A., the rôle of looking after radio broadcasting in this country. It would have been preferable to start with a separate organisation so that the two media could have developed at their own rate in their own ways and without the influence of another medium which basically is more different—I am talking about television—than the Press is different from radio.
To sum up, I believe that the Bill does the right thing, but in absolutely the wrong way. It gives far too much responsibility to the I.B.A. to make decisions. In its first and tentative stages I believe that it will be tantamount to a nationalised service with sub-contractors. This may well please hon. Gentlemen opposite. It may also explain the tepid enthusiasm which some of them have been prepared to accept, even though they will vote against, the Bill. Nevertheless, I believe that we have made a start on which I hope we shall build and shall improve in due course. To that extent I welcome the Bill.

9.43 p.m.

Mr. Mayhew: I did not have the privilege of serving on the Committee, which helps to explain why the proceedings went through in the comparatively short time of 84 hours. The Minister made some provocative remarks in his speech, suggesting that my hon. Friends had readily accepted in Committee the principle of commercial television. I was glad for the robust statement of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) which went far to discredit what the Minister said.
I know that my hon. Friends would have remained faithful to the principle and policy of the party to which we belong.—[Interruption.]—If it were true that my view on this subject was more radical than the Front Bench, it would not be the first occasion on which this has happened. They know, as I know, that our party has never opposed competition in broadcasting. They know, as I know, that our party has always preferred the principle of public service in broadcasting to the principle of commercialism. Any suggestion to the contrary which may have appeared in Committee is wrong. It may be that the long and frequent sessions slightly blunted the sensibility of my hon. Friends, but it did not deter them from these very important points.—[Hon. Members: "Withdraw."] I willingly withdraw. I know that my hon. Friends fought vigorously from start to finish in Committee.
I want the Minister to compare his attitude to this Bill with his positive and constructive attitude to an alternative television channel which he licensed in my constituency. That is the way to handle local broadcasting. One of the absolute conditions on which the Minister licensed Greenwich Cablevision, an alternative channel in my constituency, was that there should be no commercial advertising of any kind on the channel.
The right hon. Gentleman insisted on that condition because he knows that one cannot have local broadcasting without maximising one's commercial advertising revenue. As soon as the broadcaster is motivated to maximise his advertising revenue, he is motivated to maximise his audience for every programme, which means that he must have programmes which appeal to everybody at once; young and old, male and female,

people in Manchester, London and Penzance.
That is the secret of maximising advertising revenue. The principle is not to have a specific programme for specific interests in specific places. The formula is clear. One must have a programme that appeals to nobody on a particular basis, of a particular interest, in a particular place, at a particular intellectual level. One must have a programme which appeals to everybody at once, and each of the stations to be established under the Bill will be motivated to cast aside the local and specific in favour of the general pop programme.
The Minister suggested that the Labour Party was committed in this matter. I do not think it is. The young people of Britain are increasingly turning against the influence of television in the media. This is plain to anyone who studies the opinions of young people today. They know that the "something for nothing" philosophy belongs to an age that is passing. They know that one does not get something for nothing by allowing a television programme to be interrupted by advertising. They know that the cost of that advertising is met, at least in part, by the consumer of the advertised product.
The climate of opinion is changing in all these matters. There was a time when the nation thought that outdoor advertising was great and progressive. There was also a time when the jet aircraft was considered progressive. Today people say, "Outside advertisements interrupt my view of the countryside", and they claim that to be a form of environmental pollution. They say, "The jet aircraft interrupts my conversation", and that, too, they consider to be a form of environmental pollution. Tomorrow they will say, "Advertisements that interrupt my broadcast are a form of cultural, pollution".
In the 'twenties and 'thirties hon. Members and others we repressing for outdoor advertisements. Before the Minister came to this place he did a great deal to avoid environmental pollution in the material sense—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that a Third Reading debate is somewhat narrower than a Second Reading debate.

Mr. Mayhew: In drawing attention to the content of the Bill. I have found it impossible to avoid mentioning the obvious harm the Measure will do to radio.
There are better ways of doing what the Bill seeks to do, and the Minister knows this because he has just licensed a good alternative way of doing it in my constituency—an alternative channel, competition, without advertising—and the same could be done for radio.
I have never understood why we cannot have a broadcasting finance council in the way that we have the Arts Council and the University Grants Committee. This would allow freedom to radio and at the same time enable funds by general taxation to go into broadcasting. Why should we not look at the financing of broadcasting with a fresh mind and also at the licence? In my view, the most regressive form of taxation is the television licence.

Mr. Speaker: Order. In a Third Reading debate one is not entitled to look at anything with a fresh mind. One must look at the Bill.

Mr. Mayhew: I agree entirely, Mr. Speaker, and I shall immediately bring myself within the rules of order. I was provoked. Those hon. Members present when the Minister made his opening statement will know that he was extremely provocative in a very wide sense. I have made my views on the Bill clear: namely, that it was a squalid Bill before it went to Committee and it is a squalid Bill now.

9.50 p.m.

Mr. Proudfoot: I shall not follow the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) into his argument, but I would point out one thing. The cable television in his constituency will be paid for by the people who receive it by a weekly rent, instead of by advertising, and the hon. Member should have said that.
With the amount of time that we have spent in Committee and on Third Reading of the Sound Broadcasting Bill, I feel almost that we ought to sing Auld Lang Syne. I remember meeting for the first time my right hon. Friend who piloted the Bill through the Committee at our party conference at Llandudno

just after he had beaten Vladimir Kuts in a three-mile race which was televised. If my right hon. Friend had had to look over his shoulder in that race as much as he had to in Committee he would never have won. It has taught me one thing aboutlong-distance runners. My right hon. Friend has determination. It is a pity that he has, because otherwise he could have been defeated on some matters in Committee. His very determination will take him a long way in politics.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the way he has got the Bill through. It is not exactly the Bill I wanted to see but, as a believer in competition and commercial radio, I feel that this is a start of commercial radio in this country. It should have started 50 years ago; it is a ridiculous nonsense to start it now. But it is the beginning. It will be a much happier medium than B.B.C. Radio. It will be lighter, happier and more personal than the B.B.C. has ever been. Local it must be, eventually. It will probably set off with a regional flavour, but local news and flavour will be what make it successful.
I hope that my right hon. Friend and his successor will lean on the I.B.A., if that is possible, to make sure that this local radio is 24 hours-a-day radio right from the start. Not everyone has a 9 to 5 job or goes to bed at 10 p.m. and rises at 8 a.m. I hope that the Government will be able to speed up the remaining 55 stations, certainly before the next General Election. These stations will be so popular that they can never be stopped. The party opposite fought like tigers in Committee to stop the principle of this matter growing, to stop commercial radio. But, once achieved, it will be so popular and give such good service to its communities that it will never be stopped.
Lastly, I am delighted that the Government have broken the B.B.C. monopoly. I look forward to what the format will be in 1976. I want to chop up the B.B.C. like a child chops up a worm and let the bits of the B.B.C. reel off in different directions. I want more diversity of management and style than the B.B.C. provides. I look forward very much to the new age of broadcasting media in this country.

9.54 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: The time which we spent in Committee on the Bill has been undone to some extent during the time that we have been in the Chamber. In my view, the original Bill was better than that which will travel to the other place. I only hope that in another place the Bill will be brought back to the condition in which it was when we finished with it in the Committee.
I am sorry that the Minister has insisted on putting back in the Bill the link between newspapers and local radio stations. This is a retrogressive step and one on which the Conservative Party as a whole will look back as something which should not have been done.
I understand that a book is being written about this experience by a Member of another place who spent a great deal of time watching our proceedings in Standing Committee. I wonder how we shall be treated in the book and whether the Bill will be more historic than we think, whether indeed it may not bring about a questioning of the processes of democracy in this place.
The Government brought forward the Bill but they did not know what to do about it. The Bill received only lukewarm support and was, indeed, opposed in some detail from the Government side. It would be wrong to say that we on this side knew precisely what we wanted to do instead of what the Government were proposing. We knew that the Government were wrong, and we tried to put them right but the Minister refused to be educated.
I hope to see the Minister or his successor about one or two matters between now and the time the Bill goes to another place. I hope that as a result of those personal contacts and the reiteration of points which I mentioned on Report we shall be able to make some improvements to the Bill and to make it of some use.
When the right hon. Gentleman talked about social purpose a sort of blankness descended on the other side. Hon. Members opposite obviously asked themselves, "What social purpose?" I believe that the creation of an alternative service of some sort is a good idea. I believe that the creation of another news service is a good plan, but it would have been rather better if the news service had been less centralised and more diversified.
The Bill cannot commend itself to this side of the House. It is not the sort of alternative that we want. It will not contribute anything much in the way of employment. I doubt whether it will contribute anything at all to the cultural life of the country or to the enjoyment of listeners. For this reason, I shall enthusiastically walk through the Lobby against its Third Reading.

9.57 p.m.

Mr. Whitehead: The hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Proudfoot) was right to cast our minds back to the halcyon days of the 1950s when the Minister was setting out on his career. The hon. Gentleman mentioned a famous race in which the Minister took part. The hon. Gentleman could equally have mentioned the beginnings of I.T.N. After all, it was I.T.N. which put the chat in Chataway in the first place and which made him a well-known interviewer.
The problem we have seen, as the Minister has completed his stint on the Bill and has taken himself right through the period of commercial television and has introduced commercial radio, is that he has been wholly isolated. In Committee no one spoke up for him; his solitude was painful to behold. In Committee those of the Minister's hon. Friends who had not purchased earplugs or who were not doing their football pools on the back rows attacked him from time to time. It was, indeed, a case of "The loneliness of the long-distance runner".
Tonight, for the first time the Minister found a friend. The hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Fowler), perhaps for reasons of charity, perhaps for reasons of ignorance, said that there were things in the Bill with which he agreed and that there were things which the Minister had said which could be supported. This is a consummation devoutly to be wished from the Minister's point of view. After four and a half months he has found a friend and a supporter.
In his isolation and solitude the Minister was able to do no more—this is true of the Third Reading also—than deride the Opposition for their lack of policy and to say that either we supported the sustaining of the monopoly of the B.B.C. or we did not know whether we wanted local or national radio. What he must


take note of, if this Government survive long enough to let his wretched Bill become law, is what we on this side will do to commercial radio when our time comes. There are other alternatives. There could have been other alternatives. By all means, break up the monopoly—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That the Sound Broadcasting Bill may be proceeded with at this day's sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Rossi.]

Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Whitehead: There are many alternatives. The hour is too late to go into them. We could have competing public service systems. We could have some experimental licensing, as my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) said, as in Cablevision. We could have a system of negative rental for at least some of the companies, so that some of those who go into commercial radio would be genuinely serving the public instead of merely serving their shareholders, the cartels which manage them, and the advertising managers who will inevitably call the tune.
All that has been abandoned. The Minister has taken as his motto, in considering our Amendments, that one should have moderation in all things, and especially in moderation. He has been extremely moderate in his response to our Amendments.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is as successful in his new position in the Government in resuscitating the regions as he has been in breathing life into the Press barons. But there is no doubt that the Bill will not provide genuine

alternative independent sources of news, genuinely independent and competing with one another. In fact, the Bill will give to some of the more jaded local newspaper combines a chance to extend their tentacles over the regional radio which is to be introduced.

As we said right at the beginning, on Second Reading, the Bill has been hogtied throughout by the fact that the Minister could have either local radio or commercial radio, but he could not have both. We have as a result this dog's breakfast of regional radio, which, because it will be large enough, since it will go to areas like Manchester and Glasgow, may be commercially profitable.

All that the Minister could say at the end of his peroration on Third Reading was that not sufficient time was spent listening to radio in this country. Of course, one could enlarge the number of listening hours almost infinitely. In that wasteland, the United States, where three networks have been described as Tweedledum, Tweedledee and Tweedle-twaddle, by the system and the service which they provide, the hours that people spend listening to aural wallpaper are expanding still to this day.

If that is the Minister's target, if that is what he wants to do by his Bill, he will achieve it. But what about expanding horizons? What about expanding men's minds? The Bill will not do that. All it will do is provide a little more money for some people who have money already. My hope is that my right hon. Friends will see their way, when ourparty comes back to power, to tackle this wretched system and to improve it genuinely in the public interest.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

The House divided: Ayes 162, Noes 138.

Division No. 120.]
AYES
[10.3 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Bray, Ronald
Cooke, Robert


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Brinton, Sir Tatton
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Costain, A. P.


Astor, John
Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Crouch, David


Atkins, Humphrey
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Crowder, F. P.


Bell, Ronald
Burden, F. A.
Dean, Paul


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Carlisle, Mark
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Chapman, Sydney
Dixon, Piers


Biffen, John
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Dodds-Parker, Douglas


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Eden, Sir John


Boscawen, Robert
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Clegg, Walter
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy


Bowden, Andrew
Cockeram, Eric
Fidler, Michael




Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Kinsey, J. R.
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Kitson, Timothy
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Fortescue, Tim
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Rest, Peter


Fowler, Norman
Knox, David
Russell Sir Ronald


Fox, Marcus
Lane, David
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Fry, Peter
Le Merchant, Spencer
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh Whitby)


Gibson-Watt, David
Longden, Gilbert
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Luce, R. N.
Skeet, T. H. H.


Goodhart, Philip
MacArthur, Ian
Soref, Harold


Goodhew, Victor
McCrindle, R. A.
Speed, Keith


Gorst, John
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Spence, John


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Stainton, Keith


Gray, Hamish
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Green, Alan
Mather, Carol
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Grieve, Percy
Mawby, Ray
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Grylls, Michael
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Gummer, Selwyn
Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)
Stokes, John


Gurden, Harold
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Moate, Roger
Sutcliffe, John


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Money, Ernle
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Hawkins, Paul
Monro, Hector
Tebbit, Norman


Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
More, Jasper
Temple, John M.


Hicks, Robert
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon,S.)


Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Murton, Oscar
Tilney, John


Holland, Philip
Neave, Airey
Tugendhat, Christopher


Holt, Miss Mary
Normanton, Tom
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hornby, Richard
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Waddington, David


Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Howell, David (Guildford)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Ward, Dame Irene


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Parkinson, Cecil
Warren, Kenneth


Hunt, John
Percival, Ian
Weatherill, Bernard


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Winterton, Nicholas


James, David
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Woodnutt, Mark


Jessel, Toby
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Redmond, Robert
Younger, Hn. George


Kellett-Bowtan, Mrs. Elaine
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)



Kimball, Marcus
Rees, Peter (Dover)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES: 


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Mr. Michael Jobling and




Mr. John Stradling-Thomas.


NOES


Armstrong, Ernest
Foot, Michael
McNamara, J. Kevin


Atkinson, Norman
Gilbert, Dr. John
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Marks, Kenneth


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Gourlay, Harry
Marsden, F.


Bidwell, Sydney
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Marshall, Dr. Edmund


Bishop, E. S.
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hamling, William
Meacher, Michael


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Booth, Albert
Hardy, Peter
Mendelson, John


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Harper, Joseph
Millan, Bruce


Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Milne, Edward


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hattersley, Roy
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Heffer, Eric S.
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Horam, John
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Huckfield, Leslie
Moyle, Roland


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Hunter, Adam
Murray, Ronald King


Concannon, J. D.
Janner, Greville
O'Halloran, Michael


Conlan, Bernard
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
O'Malley, Brian


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Orbach, Maurice


Crawshaw, Richard
Jonas, Dan (Burnley)
Oswald, Thomas


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Padley, Walter


Dalyell, Tam
Kaufman, Gerald
Pendry, Tom


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Kelley, Richard
Pentland, Norman


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Kerr, Russell
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Dempsey, James
Lambie, David
Prescott, John


Doig, Peter
Lamond, James
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Dormand, J. D.
Latham, Arthur
Price, William (Rugby)


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Lawson, George
Probert, Arthur


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Dunn, James A.
Loughlin, Charles
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Eadie, Alex
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McElhone, Frank
Richard, Ivor


Ewing, Harry
McGuire, Michael
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Faulds, Andrew
Mackenzie, Gregor
Roper, John


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Mackie, John
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Fisher,Mrs. Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)
Maclennan, Robert
Sandelson, Neville


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)







Short, Rt. Hn. Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)
Whitehead, Phillip


Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Tinn, James
Whitlock, William


Sillars, James
Torney, Tom
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Skinner, Dennis
Tuck, Raphael
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Small, William
Wainwright, Edwin
Wool, Robert


Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)



Spearing, Nigel
Wallace, George
TELLERS FOR THE NOES: 


Spriggs, Leslie
Watkins, David
Mr. John Golding and


Stallard, A. W.
Weitzman, David
Mr. James Hamilton


Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Wellbeloved, James



Stoddart, David (Swindon)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time and passed.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Humphrey Atkins.]

Orders of the Day — LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS CARRIERS

10.13 p.m.

Mr. Dick Douglas: I want to raise the matter of development contracts for the construction of liquefied natural gas carriers. I realise that this is not a debate on the future of the shipbuilding industry. However, the lessons I seek to point out have repercussions for the whole United Kingdom shipbuilding industry and the European shipbuilding industry.
The Government are apprised of the situation. In a letter to me dated 18th October, 1971, the Minister indicated that part of the analysis for the future of Govan Shipbuilders included a study of the future market for ships, including liquefied natural gas carriers, the results of which would be made available to Govan Shipbuilders.
Enough embarrassment about the future of the company has been caused in the House, and I do not want to add to it. However, I have told the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) that I would mention in this debate his deplorable posture on Monday, when he had down a Question about the future of the four yards and failed to ask it, thus adding to the anxiety about their future. Therefore, I assume that the Government have at their disposal in relation to these yards an expert analysis of the world market for liquefied natural gas carriers and the problems and potentialities of these vessels.
What I am seeking to do is to put information before the House and to request that the Minister should either substantiate or contradict my analysis. To sustain my case I must do three things. First, I have to prove that there is a market for such vessels; secondly, to indicate that there is sufficient expertise in the United Kingdom to build them; thirdly, to point out how a suitable package could be put together in order to have future vessels of this type built with it.
My information suggests that the main demand for liquefied natural gas will come from the United States and Japan. At present, about 30 per cent. of the United States energy requirement is catered for by liquefied natural gas, and the expectation is that the growth rate will be about 6 per cent. per annum. The requirement for such a fuel, and its relatively clean nature will put pressure on United States importing sources. Estimates are that the United States importing requirement will necessitate the construction of from 30 to 40 liquefied natural gas type vessels between now and 1980. An assessment of the requirement of the Japanese market might be between 15 and 20 vessels. Additionally, there are possibilities that liquefied natural gas carriers will be required for Europe.
Speculatively, therefore, there is likely to be a market for 80 ships to meet the needs of the nations concerned up to 1980, and the type of vessel favoured might range from a size of 75,000 cubic metres capacity to as high as 200,000 cubic metres capacity, with costs at current prices for such vessels of 120,000 cubic metres—comparable to 130,000 tons dead weight tankers—ranging between £23 million and £29 million, depending on the designs chosen.
I have taken a conservative figure but I know from Lloyd's List today, that some experts in the United States estimate that by 1985 120 liquefied natural gas carriers will be required for their market, and they have extreme doubt as to the capacity of the United States and, indeed, the world to meet that demand.
I do not want to go into intricate detail of design and building techniques because time does not permit, save to underline my second point. In the main, there are two techniques for the construction of methane carriers—one a self-supporting tank type and the other an integrated membrane-type. Owners and designers claim advantages for both types. Of the ships built in British yards, the "Methane Princess" and the "Methane Progress", constructed at Vickers Armstrong and at Harland and Wolff, Belfast, respectively—are of the self-supporting tank design and are on charter to the Gas Council, which first


gained experience of the carriage of such fuel as long ago as 1959.
I do not want to over-state my case—it would be wrong to do so—by giving the impression that British shipbuilders are clamouring to build this type of vessel. I will not disclose the name of the company, but this evening and earlier I had discussions with representatives of a company which has had some experience of building similar types of vessel. They indicated that there are extreme problems involved in the construction of such vessels. They recognise that there are great potentialities in the market.
The British shipbuilders are not clamouring to build. They are not alone, because until quite recently the Japanese showed no great interest in tendering for liquefied natural gas carriers. Part of the reason may have been that the technology for such ships is a European development and that the Japanese contented themselves with acquiring licences from European yards, mainly Norwegian yards.
However, I suggest to the Minister and to the House that this is unlikely to continue. It would be idle to give the impression that Japanese shipbuilding technology is inferior to that of Europe. What is more likely to be the case is that, these ships being more labour intensive and more complicated in design than the Japanese have concentrated on so far, the Japanese will be willing for our nations to do the work of the technological break through and then, having acquired licences, and watching the development of the world market, and recognising their need to import this type of fuel, will catch up very rapidly, once they have looked at the method and the approach of European technology.
What I have said today, as I have said in previous debates on the shipbuilding industry, and as lately as last Monday in the debate on the Navy, is to suggest that here is a class of ship having a very close resemblance in standards of construction and operation to the standards of construction and operation of naval vessels. I have asked Questions on this, and I have had an indication that the naval research establishment at Rosyth gives technological advice to a British company which placed an order with a French yard for this class of vessel, labour

intensive, requiring very high standards of construction and design, so that there is a harmony in phasing the deployment of orders for such vessels with the naval construction programme. What owners and operators have to seek, because of the rigorous conditions of ship operations and safety, are the highest standards of workmanship, particularly in welding.
Consequently, while one must be resigned to the placing of orders for the construction of seven liquefied natural gas carriers for Shell Tankers (U.K.) with Chantiers du l'Atlantique at St. Nazaire, while I am resigned to that, it is galling to read in the shipping Press recently that one of the Onassis group of companies has concluded a letter of intent with a Spanish yard for up to five natural gas carriers of 165,000 cubic metres capacity to be built at a cost of close to £190 million. I am reliably informed that the Spaniards will build a new yard for this purpose. It will be more than the British spirit can bear if in the not too distant future we see ourselves in the position of watching North Sea gas liquefied and exported in ships constructed in Japan or Spain, because we have the necessary skills to build this type of vessel in the United Kingdom.
I do not know what significance is to be drawn from it, but I note that the board of Govan Shipbuilders has included in its number now Andrew Spyran, who is a director of one of the Onassis group of companies. I wonder if it is in the mind of the Government or of GovanShipbuilders perhaps to develop the potentialities for the construction of these vessels. I do not expect the Minister to reply to this this evening—

Mr. William Hannan (Glasgow, Maryhill): Why not?

Mr. Douglas: I do not expect him to because he is new to his job. I expect him to be investigating the position. I do not expect much from this debate, which is to try to probe the Government's mind and to indicate to them the general lines on which they should be embarking.
I make my concluding point with great humility because it is not for me to do the Government's job for them in relation to the shipbuilding industry. If the Government had lent half an ear to the remarks made from these benches during


the last 18 months much of the confidence they have sapped from British shipyards and are now belatedly trying to put back would have been saved.
My third point concerns the putting together of the package. The package would have to consist of a group including a company which had a source of gas, and a company which had knowledge of the operating of such vessels and which wanted either to order or charter more vessels and had a source of finance for this purpose.
I do not believe that the United Kingdom shipbuilding industry is uncompetitive. We may be uncompetitive with Japan in certain classes of ship, but I do not believe that we are uncompetitive with the United States—the United States is building this class of vessel—and I doubt that we are uncompetitive with Spain.
If the Government have made an appraisal of the situation and believe that there is a market for this type of ship, they have a responsibility for getting together the shipping companies, the oil companies, which have resources of gas and sources of finance, and the shipbuilding industry. The Government have the responsibility of bringing these organisations together to see whether we can build this type of ship in the United Kingdom. If the Government persist in "arms length" dealing they will not do it, but the ships will be built if the United Kingdom Government take the initiative.
I do not mean a development contract in the traditional sense in which orders are placed ahead of demand. The demand for this type of vessel is evident and pronounced. Several things are holding up operations. One is the complexity of the vessels and another is the potentiality for inflation. To go for a fixed price contract for this type of vessel is to court disaster. The vessels that have gone out from British yards have lost the companies millions of pounds because of the difference between the order price and the cost of construction.
Have the Government made an investigation of what has happened in other countries? Are we quite sure, for example, that orders placed in the French yards are not being under-pinned or under-written by the French Govern-

ment? My information suggests that the French Government are anxious to get this type of order for their shipbuilding industry and have indicated to the yards that they are willing to under-pin the orders.
The Government have recently altered their shipbuilding policy and have told the industry that they are willing to back it by making a tapering provision because the industry has taken on fixed price contracts in a period of inflation. The type of development contract I have in mind would go somewhat the other way. Companies that want to order the ships should be allowed to do a fair deal with the shipbuilding concern. Because of the complexity of the vessel and because there is a growth of demand for this type of vessel, it would be fair for the Government to say that if there are great discrepancies between the order price and the eventual cost they would be willing to stand behind the scenes and to make up the deficiencies. It is not sufficient to go for one order. One order for this type of vessel is disastrous. We must have a flow of orders and carefully select the yard or group of yards.
It is possible, if the package is put together, that the steel for the ship might be made in one yard which has a good throughput of steel, and the tanks for the ship might be made in another. I am pleading with the Government to enter into discussions with the industry to see how the package might be put together. If it is correct for the Government to take into consideration the consequences of inflation for shipbuilding companies by announcing these tapering subventions because of the cost of current orders, would it not be correct for them to offer assistance to cover the cost of future orders?
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. William Hannan) challenges me in this respect, but I do not expect answers tonight to all the points that I have raised. I plead with the Government to recognise that this is a growth market. This is a market in which we have the necessary skills. This is a market that will not come again. It is related to beginning and expanding the petroleum technology base in the United Kingdom. It is related closely to the discovery of North Sea oil and gas. There is a whole relationship that we


have to exploit, and I plead with the Government to take note of this exciting international development, to study very carefully how they might assist the British shipbuilding industry, not as a lame duck, not in a declining market, but in a manifestly expanding market, and to consider how they might give development contracts.

10.32 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Anthony Grant): Perhaps I might deal first with the point raised by the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas)—a slightly different one from the issue of liquid gas carriers—about the withdrawal of a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) on Monday. My hon. Friend explained the reason why he withdrew his Question, but what I think the hon. Gentleman and the House would wish to know is that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State hopes very shortly to make a further statement on shipbuilding on the Upper Clyde.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing this subject to the attention of the House. We all know that he has a great deal of interest in and brings a great deal of expertise to this subject, and we listen to him with great care. He was good enough to say that he did not accept specific answers to many of the questions that he posed. Whether that was because they were of a complex nature, or because this is my first apperance at the Dispatch Box to deal with shipbuilding, is a matter of choice, but he may rest assured that we shall carefully construe what he said.
The Government do not dissent from the figures given by the hon. Gentleman of the estimates for the market in this matter, and they agree that there is an important and growing market for liquid gas carriers, particularly those designed to carry natural gas. The Government are aware of that, and I am sure that the British shipbuilding industry is aware of it, too.
It is not altogether a simple matter to predict just how quickly the demand for these unique ships will grow. In the main, as the hon. Gentleman said, it is the developing countries that will require

imports of natural gas by sea to supplement their indigenous and traditional imported fuel supplies. A proposal to supply a new area of, say, the United States or Japan with imported natural gas involves long planning and heavy capital expenditure, and may require Government approval before it can go ahead.
The gas-carrying ship, itself an extremely complex and costly vessel, is only part of a chain of supply which includes liquefaction plant in the exporting country and equipment in the importing area to reconvert the liquid gas. The integrated nature of the operation can obviously introduce elements of uncertainty above and beyond those normally associated with ship construction.
This is, therefore, a specialised field involving very much above average technical and commercial risks, where the technology is changing and developing rapidly. I do not doubt that the capability exists in the British shipbuilding industry to design and build these ships. The ships which have for seven years carried supplies of liquefied natural gas to Canvey Island from Algeria in one of the longest established regular liquid gas services were built in Britain, and several British companies have built liquid petroleum gas carriers.
The modern natural gas carrier is not a very costly ship—the price of the largest at present under construction will be about £30 million—though, because of its size, it requires a large berth for its construction. It must be for the commercial judgment of the individual shipbuilder whether he is prepared to devote the necessary resources of plant and labour to entering what is already a competitive market, and if so for precisely what types of ship.
The market for liquid petroleum gas is different from that for liquid natural gas and demands a rather less costly and complex ship. The tendency towards larger tankers will probably be less marked in this sphere than in those of liquid natural gas or crude oil transportation and some shipyards may judge that they have a future rôle in building liquid petroleum gas carriers but not natural gas tankers.
The hon. Gentleman pointed out that the three-year tapering production grants which we have announced will not be so


applicable in this sphere, in which, of course, there are very high risks and long-term developments. In this sense I agree with him. It is an entirely different sphere. However, we must remember our international obligations and understandings reached in the O.E.C.D. Britain has continually supported moves internationally to prevent any type of international subsidy race in shipbuilding, and it would be inconsistent forus to take a step which would go against the trend which we have been following in this matter.
It would be wrong for the Government to seek to influence decisions by individual shipbuilding companies by offering specially favourable financial inducements for this type of ship. This is not to say, however, that the Government can offer no assistance in the development of gas carrier construction in the United Kingdom. I noted the points the hon. Gentleman made on this issue, but there are perhaps more difficulties than were apparent from his speech. It may be that particular aspects of the design or marketing of these ships require research work beyond the resources of individual companies, and in this context my Department would be willing to look at proposals put forward by the industry to see whether it was feasible to assist such projects, possibly through the channel of the British Ship Research Association and the Naval Construction Research Establishment, which can offer expertise in the technology of liquid gas carriers, though its services for commercial shipbuilding will always be limited by staff availability

and the priority which naval work must take.

Mr. Douglas: Would the Government be willing to place that limited type of development contract with British yards to give them a development study along particular lines?

Mr. Grant: We would be prepared to look at proposals which were put forward by the industry. We have not had particular approaches from the industry in this sphere. I cannot make firm promises at this stage—this is not the time to do so—but the Government will certainly look at realistic and carefully thought out proposals so that we can assess what can be done in this respect. I think that it will be possible to assist the industry by offering to look carefully at the difficult technological sphere which this involves.
I thought that the hon. Gentleman put his argument clearly and carefully. However, I must not be taken to go along with him in the broad belief that the Government can choose or single out any particular area, no matter how interesting and unusual it may be, for special assistance. It would be inconsistent with our international obligations, and we would be usurping the function of the industry which must have the right to decide on the best type of ship. However, we would not like the industry to feel that it has a deaf ear if it wishes to consider the possibilities of further technological assistance in some way.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.